: - 



. 



V* 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





0D0D15HHlbD 



'\*'\*s\*s 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. l 

1 <"w.BTIII"S 



$9 /"""**! 



see *™. * o n &* 

f ■ | 

| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. * 



DISCUSSION 



ON THE 



TRINITY, 

$Ijttnjj Cjansiiittiiflits sn& liiuiplhus, 

AND 

HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 

I BETWEEN 

nTsu.mmekbell, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CINCINNATI, OHIO, 

AND 

KEY. J. M. FLOOD, 

EX-PRESIDENT OF THE OHIO CONFERENCE OF THE M. P. CHURCH. 



HELD IN CEXTREVILLE, OHIO, FROM AUGUST 2, TO AUGUST 9, 1854. 

COMPRISING 



Fifty-eight alternate Speeches of Thirty Minutes each^. 



o* YR 'c*; 



m.M 



REPORTED 

BY BENN PITMAN, PHONOGRAPH 

EXAMINED AND CORRECTED BY THE PARTIES. 
THIRD EDITION. 

CINCINNATI: 

PUBLISHED BY APPLEGATE & CO., 

No. 43 Main Street. 

1855. 




3Tn> 

TO THE HEADER.' 



•s><? 



The Preliminary Letters, Rules, and arrangements, are as 
foreign to the subject, as uninteresting to the public; we there- 
fore leave the speakers to make their own introduction ; only 
prefacing it with the following, from Discussion, page 432 : 

"The congregations were usually large, and much of the time, 
yery much crowded. All the meetings were opened with prayer, 
and a general religious interest pervaded the whole." 



"The Discussion between Messrs. Flood and Summerbell, at 
Centreville, on the Trinity, <fcc, which commenced August 2, and 
closed August 9, 1854, was reported by me : and after the speeches 
of each party had been submitted to the respective speakers for cor- 
rection, were delivered to the printer in sealed packages. 

BENN PITMAN." 



" Cincinnati, 0., October 13, 1854. 
The aboye packages have been received by me, sealed ; and opened here. 

C. F. O'Driscoll." 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year Eighteen Hund- 
red and Fifty-four, by "N. Summerbell, in the Clerk's office of the 
District Court of the United States, for the District cf Ohio. , 



Ths Libra 

* Congress I 

WASHINGTON \ 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 



PROPOSITION FOR DISCUSSION. 

"Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of the 
Methodist Protestant Church, especially with regard to the 
equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, 
glory and eternity, contrary to the teaching of the Word of 
God? " N. Summerbell affirms ; Kev. J. M. Flood denies. 

Wednesday Morning, Aug. 2, 1854. 

After prayer, Mr. Summerbell said : We meet on this 
occasion to advance the cause of truth, and with no de- 
sire to criminate each other as debaters. We were chosen 
by other parties to conduct this discussion. No one chal- 
lenged. This is true at least in my case, and I have no 
doubt my brother can say the same. For the cause 
which I am here to argue, I bespeak your most candid 
consideration. We have for a great number of years 
been a persecuted people. The time has been when we 
would not have been allowed to live, much less hold this 
discussion. In a letter just received from a friend, urging 
me to forsake my faith, he says, " If you were living un- 
der some laws, you would have to suffer death for your 
heresy, as did Michael Servetus." We have for centu- 
ries thus suffered : but thanks be to God, we live now in 
a free country, which guarantees to its citizens the right 
to think as their conscience dictates. Do not, my friends, 
be prejudiced against my cause, because I am not, on 
what- you consider, the orthodox side of this question. It 
is no advantage to me to be on the wrong side ; and did 
I think this wrong, I could, if I desired, obtain admis- 

3 



4 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

sion into a more popular denomination. The other side 
would probably admit me, if I could admit their faith. 
But I am honest where I am : weak it may be, but claim- 
ing your indulgence therefore all the more. I have not 
the advantage of the theological literature of my oppo- 
nent on my side, nevertheless, I hope to draw from those 
writings, the admission that we are safe, and to substan- 
tiate from their own admissions, that, notwithstanding all 
our trials and persecutions, we are an Orthodox, Evan- 
gelical, and Biblical people; that our views are right; 
that they are the same which God commanded through 
his prophets and apostles, and that were held by the early 
fathers of the Christian church, as well as by a goodly 
portion of the Christian world at the present time. 

But first, I will give you the opinions of some of the 
leading writers on my opponent's side, in reference to the 
Trinity — the propriety of making it a test of fellowship, 
and the possibility of proving it from the Bible. 

These are great and learned men, and are considered 
by many as authorities on these questions ; and if they 
can not prove the existence of the Trinity from the Bible, 
yet, my brother, perhaps, can. 

Dr. McAll says, u We know of no greater heresy than 
unnecessarily to divide good men. Let the bigot frown; 
let the base and interested partisan seek to cover with 
unmerited dishonor, all who can not lend themselves to 
support his darling peculiarities, or his still more darling 
emoluments ; but the Christian should endeavor to con- 
ciliate, in love, etc." Dis. v. 1; 260, 300. 

Eobt. Hail attributes the divisions to " the disposition 
to found their [Christian] union on the ' hay, wood and 
stubble' of human inventions, or disreputable tenets in- 
stead of the Eternal Rock, the faith once delivered to the 
saints." Hall's Works, ii, 10, 468. 

Dr. Doddridge declared concerning one called an Arian, 
whom some wished excluded from his church, " that he 
would sacrifice his place, and even his life, rather than fix 
such a mark of discouragement upon one, who, whatever 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 5 

his doctrinal sentiments were, appeared to be a true 
Christian." Dr. Kippis in Biog. Britannica, Vol. v, p. 307. 

Dr. Watson, the pride of orthodoxy, said of the Duke 
of Grafton, who denied the Trinity, " I was happy to see 
a person of his rank professing with intelligence and sin- 
cerity, Christian principles. If any one thinks that a 
Unitarian is not a 'Christian — I think otherwise." Bp. 
Watson's Life, Vol i, p. 75, 6 ; ii, 227. Drs. Gibson, 
Turner, Parr, Chalmers, etc., express themselves the same. 

The most intelligent men testify that it is not essential 
to salvation. Bishop Tomline says, in his Elements of 
Christian Theology, Yol. ii, p. 222, " Our church j(of 
England) would have acted more wisely if it had not 
adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian creed." 

Bp. Watson remarks on the expediency of revising the 
Liturgy, p. 67, "The Trinity, as explained by Athanasius 
or any other man, I can not look upon to be so funda- 
mental as not to be revised or exchanged." Also, 
"Every human explication may be an error; and what 
may be an error, can not, and ought not to be imposed as 
a fundamental Christian verity." 

Limborch, Theo. Christianity, says, p. 5, 9 and ix, 10, 
speaking of the obscurity of the doctrine ; "It can not be, 
that the belief of such doctrines is essential to salvation." 

Archbishop Tillotson, one of the highest bishops in the 
Church of England, says of the Athanasian creed, " The 
account is in nowise satisfactory. I wish that we were 
well rid of it." Simpson, in his Appeal, p. 356, says, 
" And so do I, for the sake of our common Christianity." 

Simpson, App., p. 357, prays in his old age for the 
Lord to pardon him for having read it in church in 
his youth, and really renounced his living sooner than 
read it in the church of England in his latter years. 

Le Clerc, Insp. Scrip., p. 108, says, " Men have thought 
it an honor to be stvled orthodox, — to be linked to a 
party, — and to load others with calumnies, and damn by 
an absolute authority." 



6 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Bp. Watson asks, Life, vol. ii, p. 87, 88, " What is 
this thing called orthodoxy, which mars the fortunes of 
honest men ? " 

Tillotson says, Vol. i, 19, " We desire no better evi- 
dence that any man is wrong, than to hear him de- 
clare against reason, and so acknowledge that reason is 
against him." 

Dr. Wm. Sherlock, in his Knowledge of Christ, ch. 3, 
sec. 3, says, " Is it not intolerable presumption for men 
to shape religion according to their fancies and humors, 
and stuff it with an infinite number of orthodox proposi- 
tions, none of which are to be found, in express terms, 
in the Scriptures, but only pretended to be deduced from 
some little hints ?" &c. 

Hawies thought Dr. Samuel Clark, an English bishop, 
as bad as a deist, but the Church of England retained 
him as one of their brightest ornaments. See Hawies, i, 
p. 253. 

My brother will observe that I quote from high author- 
ities — authors who are universally acknowledged to 
be orthodox. You see the views I take are right. A 
person who does not believe in the Trinity is set down as 
a blasphemer. " Dr. Clark is as much a blasphemer as 
Socinus." {Ihid) 

That the Trinity is not according to reason is admitted 
by themselves. 

Salmeron says, Yol. iv, p. 505, "The Trinity is com- 
pletely hidden from our natural light." 

Dr. Owen says, " What is there in the whole book 
that nature, at first sight, doth more recoil at than the 
doctrine of the Trinity ? " 

He here admits that nature recoils at it ; and that it is 
contrary to reason. 

Dr. Wiseman observes, " Who will say, that by any 
stretch of imagination or reason, he can see it possible 
how three persons in one God can be but one Godhead. 
If the Eucharist, which is more clearly laid down than 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 7 

the Trinity, is to be rejected on that ground, (reason) how 
is it possible, for a moment, to support the Trinity ? " — 
Let. Doc. p. 370. 

Dr. South said, " Were it not to be adored as a mys- 
tery, it would be exploded as a contradiction." — Ser. 
vol. iii, p. 240. 

Dr. Stewart says, " The Athanasian and Nicene creeds 
destroy the full and proper equality of the persons in the 
Godhead. The Son is made dependent on the Father ; 
the Holy Ghost also." — Com. on Kom. Exc. 1. 

Luther, at the time of the Reformation, was opposed 
to the introduction of the Trinity into their code of 
belief. He says, (Eat. Laton. ii, 240), " Let wretched 
mortals give honor to God, and either confess that they 
do not understand his words, or cease to profane them 
with their own new and peculiar expressions." 

You will not deny that this is a new and peculiar 
expression. 

Calvin says, (Tractat. Thol., p. 796) " I dislike this 
vulgar prayer, ■ Holy Trinity, one God ! have mercy on 
us,' as altogether savoring of barbarism. "We repudi- 
ate such expressions, as being not only insipid, but 
profane." 

Of course, he was writing against the Church of 
England. 

Dr. Maclaine, Mosheim's Ec. Hist. 5th Cent., part ii, 
chap. 5, note, says of the Trinity, " The use of this word, 
(Trinity) and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach 
either no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and 
peace, without promoting peace or knowledge. It has 
produced heresies of the very worst kind." 

Carlisle says, (Con. Apud % , 41) "I confess that I have 
ever disliked the use of the word Trinity, in prayer to God." 

Bishop Beveridge says, " The Trinity, though fre- 
quently intimated in the Old Testament, yet it is a hard 
matter to rightly understand it without the New Testa- 
ment, insomuch that the Jews, &c, could never make 
this an article of faith." — Private Thoughts, vol. ii, p. 66. 



8 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

I want you to understand, that they think they never 
could gather it from the Old Testament, and that the 
Jews could never have made it an article of faith. 

Says Bishop Burnett, " Take the Old Testament with- 
out the New, and it must be confessed that it will not be 
easy to prove this article (Trinity)." — Expon. 39th Art., 
art. 1, p. 39. 

These are great men, of considerable experience, and 
though they cannot prove this doctrine by the Old Testa- 
ment, my brother perhaps can ! A peculiarity of the 
defenders of this doctrine is, that they are all sure that 
nobody ever yet has properly defended the Trinity, or can 
do it, but themselves ; and, on a careful review, their 
friends all admit that they have not done it. They 
mostly admit that it is not in the Old Testament ; others 
admit that it is not in the Gospels ; some, that it is not 
in the Acts ; others, that it is not in the Epistles ; and 
others, that it is not revelation but tradition. Some give 
up all texts but 1 Tim. iii, 16, and 1 John v, 7 ; and 
Griesbach, Barnes, Newton, Dr. A. Clarke, and hosts 
of others, admit that they (the orthodox, pious souls !) 
forged these. But, my friend here thinks that he can 
prove it all from the Bible ! If this doctrine of the 
Trinity were true, God, in making a revelation, would 
have named it somewhere. It would be necessary in 
writing your will, if you left property to your child, to 
name that child somewhere in your will. So God, in 
making a revelation of an important doctrine, upon 
which our salvation depended, would not have left it to 
be inferred from ambiguous texts. My friend must find 
the Trinity named in the Word of God, and he must so 
define the texts as to make them mean all that his creed 
makes them mean. I am sure that the highest honors 
are in store for him if he can accomplish this. I'll 
guarantee him a cardinal's cap from mother Rome. 

Let us now direct our attention to the creed, or consti- 
tution, as my brother would prefer to call it. 

Art. 1. " There is but one living and true God, with- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 9 

out body or parts. 55 To understand this I will read their 
exposition. 

" The Bible is very clear on the doctrine of but one 
God, &c, but as soon as we open it again, and in other 
places, another doctrine is presented, (the Trinity) which 
seems to conflict with this first statement. 55 — Notes on the 
Twenty-five Articles of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
by Rev. A. A. Jimeson, M. D., in which they are 
carefully considered and supported, page 65. 

Here the supporter and defender frankly owns that the 
Trinity is another doctrine, which seems to conflict with 
the first, which is very clear. Now, a doctrine of the 
Bible should be found so clearly expressed, at least, as 
that it may certainly be found by the sincere Bible stu- 
dent; such, however, Mr. Jimeson admits is not the 
case. He says, " No one doubts the existence of but one 
God, who has carefully studied the Bible ; but there are 
persons who not only doubt, but deny the doctrine of 
three persons in this one God. 55 — Page 66. 

Why it is that even those who carefully study the 
Bible deny this doctrine, is further explained by Mr. 
Jimeson, where he says of the Trinity, " This term is 
not found in the Bible, it is true, but it is a very appro- 
priate term to express this great doctrine. 55 — Page 66. 

But many will say, though it conflicts with the unity 
of God, and be not easilv found, and though the term is 
not in the Bible at all, yet the doctrine is surely 
positively stated in some one text. No, Dr. Jimeson 
admits that it is not. He says : 

" As nothing positive on this doctrine, (of Trinity) 
can be drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, our fuller and 
final proof must be found in the Christian Scriptures. 
Even here, the doctrine of the Trinity, in all its extent 
and modifications is taught in no single passage. 55 — P. 69 
and Nean. i, 572, says the same. 

Nor is Jimeson peculiar in thus admitting — while 
trying to prove the Trinity by the Bible — that it is not 
revealed in it. Dr. Goodman says, " Scarce the footstep 



10 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

of the three persons is distinctly seen in the creation or 
the law."— Con. Apud. 43. 

Bp. Beveridge says, " Though frequently intimated in 
the Old Testament, yet it is a hard matter to rightly un- 
derstand it without the New: inasmuch as the Jews 
could never make this an article of faith." — Private 
Thoughts, ii, 26. 

Dr. South, Dr. Longley, Bishop Burnet and others, 
and Dr. Clarke think that the distinction of persons 
was not fully evident till after the incarnation. Heb. i, 
2. — Commentary. 

The remark of Dr. Jimeson, on page 28 of his "Illus- 
tration and defence of the Articles," is worthy of all notice. 
He says : — 

"The doctrine of one living God is eminently the 
doctrine of the Scriptures. Beyond these the specula- 
tions of philosophy have been confused and of atheisti- 
cal tendency." — Dr. Jimeson on the Twenty-five Articles. 

But let us further examine the article itself. 

Art. I. " There is but one living and true God, without 
body or parts." This, Dr. Jimeson admits, plainly con- 
tradicts the Bible. He says, page 40 : — 

"But it maybe objected that the article contradicts 
many of the descriptions of God in the Bible. It is ad- 
mitted that it does contradict those passages where God 
is described as having a seat on a throne; as walking, as 
speaking, as having a face, eyes, hands, etc.; but these 
descriptions of God are employed in condescension to 
our feeble and imperfect conceptions of what God is, etc.;" 
but the Doctor's explanation is not ingenious. He thinks 
that God is spoken of as having a body in condescension 
to our weakness ; but affirms that such statements of the 
Bible are untrue, and mislead our weakness: and of 
course, thinks our weakness better guarded by their rejec- 
tion. 

Art. I. " Without body or parts." So says the creed ; 
but God, who never formed the creed, says, " I will put 
thee in the cleft of a rock, and will cover thee with my 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 11 

band while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and 
thou snalt see my back parts : but my face shall not be 
seen." — Ex. xxxiii, 22. Comment is unnecessary ; those 
who love God will believe him : but those who prefer the 
creed will believe it. 

Article I. says that God is without lody ; but Article 
III. says, that he took again his body, with all things per- 
taining to man's nature. Without parts, yet "in unity!" 
Unity without parts. " In unity of this Godhead there 
are three persons." Here is a union without parts. 
Three persons, and but one God. With a body and all 
things pertaining to man's nature, yet without body or 
parts. 

Art. I. - 4 Three persons of one substance, power and 
eternity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Now con- 
cerning this one substance, power and eternity, we wish 
to know, how they really understand it ? Dr. Jimeson 
calls it : 

" God and the two OTHER persons that compose the 
Trinity." Mark you ! God and the two other persons. 
So it seems that there are two other persons beside God 
in the Trinity. Hear Jimeson again, p. 67 : " It is not a 
question that God is the Creator, — but that other persons 
are in the Godhead." That is, other persons beside God, 
or other persons who are not God ! They admit, of 
course, that Christ is one of the other persons : but that 
they are not satisfied that he is really God himself, is 
proved by their saying, pp. 74, 85. "Phillip, ii, 6, speaks 
of a person "equal with God.'" The original is, " like 
God." See Macknight. It is as evident to every school- 
boy, that no person would be declared to be equal with 
himself, as that God has no equal ; yet by trying to prove 
Christ equal with God, they in effect admit, that he is 
neither that God with whom they compare him, nor 
equal to him whose infinite greatness is unquestioned. 

Art. I. " Three persons of one substance, power and 
eternity — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Now since 
their candidates are required to study Clarke, let us 



12 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

quote him to see if they believe in this eternity of the 
Son. 

Clarke says, " I cannot close in with the common view 
of what is called the eternal sonship of Christ. I know 
not of any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the 
divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to 
be the Son of God ; " and states frankly, that he told 
Wesley, that he could not admit the divinity of Christ, 
if he had to receive the common doctrine of the eternal 
sonship. So that the Son, instead of being eternal 
and equal with God, is, according to Clarke, only about 
1800 years old. Mark that! — Comment is unneces- 
sary. That they do not believe the Son equal, even 
where they admit his divinity, is sufficiently proved by 
the w r hole tenor of their worship, as I shall show in the 
future. They may admit the Logos equal ; but the creed 
says the Son. The doctrine of the Trinity is not, the 
Father, Logos, and Holy Ghost, but the Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost. 

Me. Flood's First reply: 

I appear before you to respond to the remarks of my 
worthy brother, on the proposition submitted for discus- 
sion. First, I invite your attention to the preliminary 
remarks which my brother expressed ; to which senti- 
ments I cordially respond, and hope we have not come 
together for the purpose of criminating each other, but 
to dwell together in this place as brethren, while we are 
engaged in the investigation of this important subject. 
He says, w T ith regard to his denomination, that they have 
been a persecuted people for a long time, but he hopes 
that his views may be received here without prejudice ; 
but he affirms that, at a former period of the Christian 
church, they were in the majority, but that he has now 
the sad misfortune to be found in the minority ; and he 
himself ardently desires, in view of these unfavorable 
circumstances, that he should not be the subject, or vic- 
tim, of your unrestrained prejudices ; and I would put 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 13 

in a plea in his behalf. He may be assured, that he 
will not be persecuted by any portion of our friends now 
present, from the fact that they happen to be in the 
majority, and have come, as I understand, to be spoken 
of here as orthodox. He says further, that in times past 
they have been persecuted even to death ; that must have 
been when their opinions ceased to be regarded as true ; 
but those who will take the pains to search into the early 
history of the church of Christ, will find, in the fourth 
century, in the year 328, or thereabouts, an account of a 
controversy on this subject. Now, orthodoxy is in the 
ascendant ; then, Arianism was in the ascendant. I am 
happy to find my friend so well posted in all that is 
likely to be adverted to in this discussion ; then he need 
not be in the slightest fear that his arguments will 
remain ud answered. I must say, however, at the outset, 
that I gave this brother notice, that I would be here, but 
I did not receive from him the slightest intimation that 
he would be here ; but I find him here, with documents 
regularly written out, from which he quotes certain 
authorities, which I cannot now run over, showing a 
spirit of tolerance, in modern divines, toward Unitarian- 
ism, Arianism, or w r hatever other shade of diversity 
might have existed between professors, in which great 
men have said, and very justly, that good men should 
not be debarred from communion with the church of 
Christ, or deprived of fellowship, because of honest dif- 
ferences of opinion existing on this subject. The senti- 
ments of these authors I endorse ; so that my good 
brother and I will have no controversy on that subject ; 
but, he remarks, that Luther did not desire, at the time 
of the Reformation, that the doctrine should be intro- 
duced into their creed. It was not designed, on the part 
of mv brother, to intimate that Luther was not a Trinita- 
rian ! There can be no question that Luther was, at 
every period of his ministry, a stanch supporter of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and fully believed in the equality 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as stated in the 



14 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 

Gospel ; but, on the ground of expediency, and to avoid 
a war of words, in the times that tried men's souls, 
Luther might have been unwilling that that disputed 
question should be started, and thus, possibly, defeat the 
great work they had in view. It gives evidence that the 
great reformer was a man of tolerance, and did not 
desire to chain the consciences of men, or to curb them 
in a free, intellectual pursuit of divine truth ; he assumes 
that the upholders of the Trinity have a peculiar method 
of proving their doctrines — a method differing from all 
others ; and when they have gone through with it, a want 
of conviction that the position has been proven, or even 
that they themselves have succeeded in proving their 
position. 

I will now venture upon the proof of this doctrine of 
the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in my 
peculiar way. The proposition, standing in the form as 
presented, rebutting evidence is admissible. In this 
connection, it is proper to make reference to authors 
quoted by my opponent; for instance, he quotes from 
Jimeson, a portion of his treatise on the Articles under 
consideration, for illustration. I stand here to defend 
Jimeson. I stand here upon Bible grounds. Is the 
Bible in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity ? I admit 
that the term Trinity does not occur in the Bible, but I 
do not admit that my opponent is correct in stating that 
the term, in this connection, is modern ; it is a term that 
has long been in use, and employed in this controversy 
as far back as the days of Arius, in the fourth century ; 
however, it is not to be respected on account of its anti- 
quity, any more than any other phrase expressive of an 
important truth ; according to Mr. Webster, in reference 
to the character of the Deity, it signifies three in one, a 
union of three persons in the Godhead, the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, and, of course, as 
it is employed in this sense, I use it as a Scripture phrase, 
and as expressive of a Scripture doctrine. Hence, 
(though I am not tenacious of the phraseology,) I am 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 15 

very tenacious for the truth, which that phrase represents 
and expresses. There are several terms in the proposi- 
tion to be considered : The first, is the term Trinity, 
which signifies three in one, and is expressive of three 
distinct persons in one undivided Godhead : the second 
term, Godhead, represents the divine nature, as a whole, 
as possessed of three persons. This term does occur in 
the Scriptures, and will be found in Romans i, 20, 
" Even his eternal power and Godhead ; " in Colossians 
ii, 9, " for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the God- 
head bodily." Here we have, in two places, the expres- 
sion " Godhead ; " in the first, Christ is spoken of, in 
connection with his eternal power and Godhead ; Christ 
is equal with the Father in power ; here it is asserted, in 
emphatic terms, "his eternal power and Godhead." 
This term relates to the infinite, eternal, and immutable 
nature of the Deity, the embodiment of which dwells in 
Jesus Christ, and, I assume, nowhere else ; that there is 
one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; that these 
three are one, in substance, glory, and eternity. But, 
my brother goes on to state, that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is not apparent from the Hebrew Scriptures of the 
Old Testament, and that it has been admitted by Trinita- 
rians to be so. I join issue with my brother here. I 
think that the doctrine of the Trinity, though not 
expressed in the same plain phraseology in the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament, as found in the New, is, never- 
theless, clearly to be inferred from numerous passages, and 
that there can be no question that the doctrine of the 
Trinity was understood by the Old Testament believers ; 
received, and received as essential doctrine. Genesis i, 
26. — "God said, Let us make man in our image, and 
after our likeness." The use of a plurality of persons, 
in this expression, is evidence sufficiently conclusive that 
more than one person is understood in this great work 
of creation ; " let us make man after our image, after 
our likeness." Genesis xi, 7. — "Let us go down and 
confound their language;" this relates to the purpose 



16 DISCUSSION OK THE TRINITY. 

of God to go down and confound the language of 
the builders of the tower of Babel ; at the time of his 
going down to confound their language, the address is 
made in the same form. Now, had there not been a 
plurality of persons, the language would have been in 
the singular, " / will go down." He speaks as though 
there were a consultation held bj 7 different persons, with 
regard to the accomplishment of that work, and the con- 
clusion expressed is in these words, " let us go down, 
and confound their language." For the present, I design 
only taking these authorities from the Old Testament 
Scriptures ; I assume, however, that the doctrine of the 
Trinity, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, though 
not expressed in these w r ords, is, nevertheless, so fully 
expressed, that no other just conclusion can possibly be 
arrived at. That there are three persons constituting 
the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the 
language of the benediction in 2d Corinthians xiii, 
14, plainly teaches. " The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here three persons are 
spoken of ; if there was but one person in the Godhead, 
why employ these three appellations, all of which have 
a relation to the belief as expressed in the language 
employed. The grace and favor of Christ, the love of 
God, as expressed to you in your redemption and salva- 
tion, and recovery from sin, let that love abide, let it 
ever remain, the communion of the Holy Ghost, by 
which you enjoy the evidence of your acceptance with 
God, and fellowship with the Father ; and with his Son 
Jesus Christ, as the efficient agent in the great work of 
human salvation, let him abide in his sanctifying in- 
fluence with you all. With regard, then, to the power 
of Christ, the language is sufficiently expressive in the 
Old Testament, as well as in the New, to show that the 
equality of the Father was the received doctrine of the 
church, under the old dispensation. Psalms ii, 7. 
" Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ;" this 



DISCUSSION ON THE TEINITY. 17 

language was uniformly admitted, by the Jews, to be 
applicable to the Messiah. Isaiah xlviii, 16. — " And 
now the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit thus 
saith : the Lord, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." 
Chap, lxi, 1. — "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for 
the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto 
the meek, and hath sent me to bind up the broken 
hearted — to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the 
opening of the prison to those that are bound." Here 
one person is speaking of another, whose spirit was 
resting upon him ; "The spirit of the Lord is upon me." 
This language corresponds with that employed by our 
Lord Jesus Christ, in the quotation selected from Isaiah, 
in the first public discourse which he preached, when he 
quotes these words. Here one divine person is resting 
upon another. I shall now proceed to notice a few re- 
marks made by my brother on the character of God. 

" Without body or parts." In the first proposition, 
God the Father is without body or parts. This is the 
doctrine of Methodists, as received and understood by 
them ; and it is this I stand here to defend to-day. As 
to a physical body, or parts, (for this has been alluded 
to,) it is not so understood, physically. God is not, as a 
man, possessed of body and parts. The term " parts " 
is here used in this restricted sense, and not to the ex- 
tent my friend would give it. That Moses, on one 
occasion, saw the Lord Jehovah in a physical form, I 
presume no one will assert. The language of the apostle 
is this, "JSTo man hath seen God at any time ;" " Lord, 
show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Jesus replied, 
"Flave I been so long a time with you, Philip, and hast 
thou not known me ? " The Saviour employs different 
language when referring to himself; he uses the term, 
" known me." He does not say that God was an object 
of sense, because he did not possess body, or parts, as 
the essential being ; but he refers the disciples to him- 
self. " Have I been so long a time with you, and hast 
thou not known me, Philip ; know ye now, that I am in 
2 



18 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

the Father, and the Father in me." You have here be- 
fore you the express image of the Father's glory, and of 
his person, the only manifestation that God has made of 
himself, you have in me. My brother then proceeds to 
make a quotation from Jimeson, and from two or three 
other authors, and then assumes that there is a God, and 
that there are two other persons, and these are brought 
in, finally, to constitute the Godhead, and, in further 
proof of this doubtful position, he says, Dr. Clarke does 
not admit the eternity of the Son of God. He could not 
believe that God had begotten the divine nature of Jesus 
Christ. Now, I occupy precisely the position that Dr. 
Clarke does, and find myself in very good company. I 
therefore claim that the word which w T as in the beginning 
with the Father, was God ; is not the person he alluded 
to as begotten of the Father from the womb of the Vir- 
gin Mary, but, that the man Christ Jesus, is the person 
alluded to as begotten ; and in this sense, he is the Son 
of God ; that the word, or logos, which was in the be- 
ginning with the Father, who in his person is equal in 
substance, power, and glory, and eternity, with the 
Father. 

Me. Summerbell's Second address : 

My friend says, that he agrees with Clarke ; but Clarke 
says the Son is not eternal, and the creed says the Son is 
God, the second person in the Trinity. Then he does 
not believe that the second person in the Trinity is eter- 
nal ? He says the word is eternal ; but the word is not 
the Son, and the Son, according to Dr. Clarke, is not God 
at all. He had better let Clarke alone. 

He says, God has not a physical body ; but his creed 
says that he has. He quotes Philip, who says, " Show 
us the Father." I answer, they could not see the invis- 
ible Spirit ; they could only see the physical body. Was 
that God ? Then he has two Gods, one with a body, and 
one without a body. He quotes, " I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me ; " but Jesus adds, " they in me, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 19 

and I in thee ; that they may all be perfect in one." And 
this, my brother quotes to prove the Trinity ! He next 
quotes, " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ; " and 
here he has one divine person resting upon another di- 
vine person. Why is this ? He says, that Christ has all 
power. But, Matthew xxviii, 18, Christ says, "All 
power is given unto me, etc." In Psalms ii, 7, God says 
to the Son, " Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen 
for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
for thy possession." He quotes Corinthians xiii, 14, 
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God 
the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost." In 
answer to which, I refer him to Rev. i, 4, " Grace be unto 
you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and 
which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are 
before his throne." Here are more than three persons. 
Let my brother explain how grace is invoked from seven 
spirits ? Genesis xi, 7, " Let us go down ; " but I can 
also say, let us do this and that, and yet I am no Trinity. 
God, doubtless, " spake unto his Son, by whom also he 
made the worlds," Heb. i, 1, 2 ; but my brother says that 
the Son is only eighteen hundred years old ; but Paul, 
who is better authority, says that God made the world 
by his Son ; who was the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person. My brother says, the 
Trinity may be clearly inferred from the Old Testament ; 
but he does not find the place. He says, the agency in- 
cludes a plurality ; but I answer, God could not he 
another person's agent. He says, that in Christ dwells 
the fullness of the Godhead bodily ; that is, the embodi- 
ment of the Divine nature, Father, Son and Holy Ghost 
dwells in Christ. Thus he makes the three persons in 
the Godhead to dwell in Christ; instead of Christ bein°; 
one person in the Godhead ! He says, that " Godhead" 
is mentioned in the Bible ; true, it is, but it is not said 
that three persons dwell in the Godhead. He then goes 
into the proof of the Trinity, without answering my ar- 



20 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

guments on the creed. Why is this ? He admits that the 
word Trinity is not in the Bible, but claims that it is of 
ancient origin ; but this ancient origin is ancient heathen 
origin — according to Clarke, Johni, 1. My brother says, 
that it was in the Christian church as far back as Arius, 
but it was not in the Nicene creed. Why was it not there ? 
He quotes Webster ; but Noah Webster was a Trinita- 
rian. Mosheim says, that the council of Constantinople 
(A. D., 381) gave the finishing touch to the doctrine of 
the Trinity, which the council of Nice left imperfect ! 
He thinks that I could not have quoted Luther correctly. 
I did not say that Luther denied the doctrine of the Tri- 
nity, but he was opposed to the use of the word ; and I 
say, he renounced more than my brother will. Luther 
would have rejected it, but he retained the word to get rid 
of the imputation of Arianism, which he knew his ene- 
mies would be ready enough to charge him with ; just as 
my brother gives me the name of Arian for rejecting the 
word Trinity. He says, that he wrote me a letter ; this 
letter I received on Saturday night, before starting for 
this place on Monday morning ; and, consequently, it was 
received too late to send an answer to him ; but he set the 
time himself. He appeals to Mosheim to show that the 
Arians persecuted when they were in the ascendant. I 
deny that we are Arians ; though I admit that we are 
generally called so in history. I have not said that we 
were once in the majority ; but that those who hold our 
sentiments were. I will now resume my argument, and 
will, in the first place, give nineteen proofs that the Trin- 
itarians do not honor the Son and the Holy Ghost as 
equal ivith the Father : 

First. They place the Father first in the Trinity, and 
the Son second ! 

Second. Their system allows of no atonement to God 
the Son ! 

Third. They have no mediator between them and God 
the Son ! 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 21 

Fourth. The most favorable view of their theory- 
makes God the Son, the mediator between God the Father 
and men ! 

Fifth. Their God the Son is not self-existent, but be- 
gotten before all worlds ; {see Athanasian and JVicsne 
creeds,) but God the Father is self-existent ! 

Sixth. Their God the Son prays ; but God the Father 
does not ! 

Seventh. They say that their God the Son has a body, 
and was a man ; views derogatory to the true character 
of God, according to their own creed or constitution ! 

Eighth. They say that their God the Son died to recon- 
cile his Father; thus honoring God the Father by the 
sacrifice of God the Son ! 

Ninth. They do not pray to the Son in the name of 
the Father, as they do to the Father in the Son's name ! 

Tenth. The Father does not plead with the Son, as 
the Son does with the Father ! 

Eleventh. The Son does not exalt the Father ! 

Twelfth. They do not pray to the Holy Ghost, as much 
as they do to the Father ! 

Thirteenth. They do not pray to the Holy Ghost in the 
name of the Son ! 

Fourteenth. They do not offer any sacrifice to the 
Holy Ghost ! 

Fifteenth. They do not have any mediator between 
them and the Holy Ghost ! 

Sixteenth. That they really consider the Son and Holy- 
Ghost as inferior to God, or not really God, is proved by 
their thanking God for the gift of his Son, and praying 
to God to give his Spirit ! 

Seventeenth. Their continued effort to prove the Son 
equal to the Father, shows that the Father occupies a 
superior place in their system, and they acknowledge the 
inferiority of the Son, even in the effort to prove him 
equal ! 

Eighteenth. Jimeson on the Tiventyfve Articles, p. 
67, says, "The divine nature of God, and of the two 



22 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

OTHER persons that compose the Trinity ; " language 
which shows a consciousness of inferiority in the author's 
mind. 

Nineteenth, Clarke, on Hebrews, chap, i, positively 
denies the eternal sonship of Christ, but thinks that the 
son of Mary, that is, the man, is called God ; yet posi- 
tively affirms that the angel does not give the appellation 
of Son to the divine nature, but only to the human. But 
let us proceed with the creed. 

Art. II. " The Son who is the very and eternal 

God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature, 
etc., so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one 
person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very 
God, and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, 
dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us." By very 
God, and very man, they mean two persons ; for very 
God, is, at least, one person, and very man, at least, one 
other person. Jimeson, p. 86, says, " As God, he 
(Christ) existed prior to his human nature, and did not 
need humanity as a means, or aid, to his eternal being P 
This, then, is one eternal being independent of human- 
ity, or the "very man" Again, p. 86 ; As man he was 
perfect, and might have existed as other men, without 
the divine nature. This, then, is another being. Here 
are two persons, two whole beings, that could exist inde- 
pendently of each other, one as God, the other as other 
men. And my brother said that the person who was 
with God, in the beginning, was not the person begotten 
of the Virgin. This, then, is what they mean, when they 
say, that he has two natures, that he took again his body 
with all things pertaining to man J s nature. They have 
two beings, and one person not the other person : two who 
Jimeson says, could have existed independent of each 
other; and my brother says, that he stands here to defend 
Jimeson. Two persons ; but neither of them the Son 
of God. Of these two beings, called very God, and very 
man, one is God, and the other they call a creature, and 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 23 

refuse to worship. The one that was seen, suffered, 
was dead, and now pleads for them, they refuse to 
worship: but worship the Divine nature that neither 
suffered or died for them; but the creed makes both 
dead. Very God and very man, who truly suffered, was 
dead. So the hymn says, " When God, the mighty 
maker, died." 

Difficulties start up here. 1. How they could kill a 
God without body or parts ; or, 2. Whether this God 
that died was some other God beside the God that had 
no body or parts. And so they make him inferior to 
the supreme God, by their own arguments on the mate- 
riality of God. Jimeson says, " God cannot have a 
body or parts composed of material substance, for this 
would exclude him from all places occupied by other 
material bodies." — " God must be without body or parts, 
for a body can not be present in more than one place at 
the same time," etc., p. 40. 3. At all events, this 
proves that they think that Christ, who had a body, is 
inferior to the God, who is without body. This they also 
admit, by saying, that this God and man died to recon- 
cile his Father to us — of course, the less must die to 
reconcile the greater. It is thus the creed degrades the 
Son of God. 4. The scorn with which they everywhere 
speak of the materiality of God, or the idea of God having 
a body, shows that they do not really believe that the 
Son, who has a body, is their Supreme God. 5. So far 
from blaming them for denying the doctrine of their 
"very man" being the invisible God, without body or 
parts, I praise them for it, and hope that they will soon 
embrace the whole truth. 6. But I will not dwell on 
the creed, but sum up some of its contradictions, in a 
few brief sentences. It says, first : 

Art. I. " There is but one living and true God, with- 
out body or parts." 

Illustration 1. " Without body." Yet, " Christ, who 
is the very and eternal God," — " did rise again from 
the dead, and took again his body." 



24 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

III. 2. M Without parts." Yet, " In unity of this God- 
head there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost." 

III. 3. " Three persons of one substance, power, and 
eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
Yet Clarke says, that the angel does not give the appel- 
lation of Son of God to the divine nature of Christ. 
Clarke, Luke i, 35. So that the second person is not 
divine. 

III. 4. " Of the same eternity." Father and Son 
both of the same eternity. Clarke says, " Father im- 
plies, in reference to Son, precedency in time, if not in 
nature too." Clarke, Luke i, 35. 

111. 5. "Of one substance."* And the Son has two 
whole and perfect natures, Godhead, and manhood, 
body and human soul : yet all three are of one substance. 

III. 6. " Of one substance." Yet the supreme Being, 
the living God, (is) independent of matter, either as 
part of himself, or," etc. " Material substances would 
exclude him from all places occupied by other material." 
Jimeson, p. 40. 

"Without body." Yet God the Son has a material 
body. 

III. 7. " Godhead and manhood were joined together 
never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, 
and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, 
and buried, to reconcile his Father to us." So that the 
very God was dead and buried : the living and true God 
was dead ! 

III. 8. " Never to be divided." So that the only God 
of the universe was united with very man in death three 
days. 

III. 9. " But one living and true God ;" yet he, united 
to very man, died to reconcile his Father to us. 

III. 10. " To reconcile his Father." That is, the very 
God died to reconcile the very God's Father — who was 
dead, or some other God, called the very God's Father — 
to men. 

III. 11. " Christ did truly rise again from the dead, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 25 

and took again his body." So that it was not the body 
of Christ alone, that was dead, but the one Christ, very 
God, and very man, that took again his body. 

111.12. "Took again his body, with all things per 
taining to man's nature." That is, the Christ who first 
arose from the dead, then took again his body, with all 
things pertaining to man's nature. So that, beside the 
Christ that rose again from the dead, there was a body 
with all things pertaining to man's nature. 

III. 13. The Bible says, that the fullness of the God- 
head dwelt in Christ : but the Discipline contradicts it, 
by saying, that the three persons, each of whom is God, 
and one very man, four real persons, are all in the God- 
head, instead of the Godhead being in Christ. 

I will now commence an argument to show that Trinita- 
rians differ among themselves, as much as they do with us. 

1. Clarke, Luke i, 35, says, that the angel does not 
give the appellation, Son of God, to the divine nature — 
that the divine nature could not be born of the Virgin, 
but that the human nature was born. 

2. The angel, however, contradicts Clarke, saying, that 
" unto you is bom this day, a Saviour, which is Christ 
the Lord." 

3. But Clarke says, that "two natures (persons) must 
ever be distinguished in Christ ; the human nature, in 
reference to which he is the Son of God, and inferior to 
hhn; and the divine nature, which was from eternity, and 
equal to God ; " thus plainly denying the equality of 
the Son of God. 

4. Mr. Brown, (of East Genesse Con., N. T., book 
sold at M. E. Book Concern, Cin.,) says, " True, God 
has no equal — it means equal with the Father," pp. 18 
and 29. So that the Father is not as great as God, ac- 
cording to Mr. Brown. 

5. Mr. Mattison, of N. Y. city M. E. Ch., on Trinity, 
p. 3, says, " To deny the eternity of the Son, is to deny 
the eternity of the Father ; one relation can be no older 
than the other." 

3 



26 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

6. Clarke, Luke i, 35, says, " Is there any part of 
Scripture that plainly says that the divine nature of Jesus 
is the Son of God?"' 

7. Matt., p. 141, " The Christian church has always 
believed that the divine Father had a divine Son, co- 
equal. 

8. Clarke, Luke i, 35, "If Christ be the Son of God, 
as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity 
prior, consequently, superior to him." 

9. Brown says, " He is the Son of God by his miracu- 
lous conception." 

10. Wood, Bib. Diet., art. Christ, says, "To pretend 
that he is called the proper, the only begotten Son of God, 
because of his miraculous conception, is not only ground- 
less and absurd, but even blasphemous," p. 428. So that 
one-half of Trinitarians call the other half blasphemers — 
even Clarke and Barnes. 

11. " The doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ, is, 
in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous," 
says Clarke. 

12. Bp. Watson, p. 30, (543,) " The Creator was the 
Son of God before he was sent into the world." 

13. Clarke says, " If Christ be the Son of God, as to 
his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal, for Son im- 
plies a father, and the Father is of necessity prior, and 
consequently superior." — Luke i, 35. 

14. Mattison, p. 74, " Son of God implies absolute 
divinity, and is no proof of inferiority." 

15. "If," says Clarke, "the divine nature were begot- 
ten of the Father, then it must be in time ; this destroys 
the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of 
his Godhead." 

Clarke positively denies that the Son is either divine 
or eternal ; thus destroying the second person in the 
Trinity. Hence, they baptize in the name of the Father, 
and the human nature, and of the Holy Ghost ; and 
Barnes agrees with him. See Eom. i, and Heb. i. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 27 

Mattison, p. 124, says, " The Son is both a child born, 
and the mighty God." 

Mattison, p. 21, says, " To say that the Son is the ever- 
lasting Father, or that the mighty God was born, is little 
less than blasphemy." 

Watson, p. 30, (note) refers to Micah v, 12, to prove a 
twofold birth: and p. 32, says, " he was before all crea- 
ted things by generation, not by creation ;" thus plainly 
contradicting Clarke — and p. 41, " that the blood of Christ 
was the blood of God." 

Mattison, p. 39, says, " Trinitarians do not hold to the 
sufferings or death of divinity ; " but contradicts himself, 
saying, p. 128, " The Word, the second person in Trin- 
ity — became a sacrifice for sin." As per hymn, " When 
God, the mighty Maker, died." 

Watson, p. 30, quotes Prov. xxx, 4, and says, that "it 
expresses clearly that God had a Son, and makes no ref- 
erence to his incarnation." 

Thus some contend for the eternity of the Son, in order 
to save the Trinity ; but others think that there is no 
Son : so the 

Five Hundred Sketches and Skeletons of Sermons, 
Heb. vii, 11, p. 498, says of Christ, that " 1st, as divine, 
he had no Father, but is self-existent ; and, 2d, as human, 
he had no Father ; " so that he is no Son at all, accord- 
ing to Trinitarianism. 

Mr. Flood's Second reply: 

I was pleased to see a disposition, on the part of my 
brother Summerbell, to approach this subject in his 
second speech, but I regretted to see a tendency to turn 
from it at the close. In regard to what certain authors 
say respecting Luther, that he was undecided, and that 
he yielded to Melancthon, in regard to the doctrine of the 
Trinity, I shall only be doing simple justice to that great 
and good divine — to w T hom, under God, both my brother 
and myself, and all Protestant Christians are indebted for 
our present freedom of inquiry — by stating that at no 



28 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

time was his theology divested of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and that his views, in any material sense, differed 
from those commonly received by Trinitarians, I unques- 
tionably deny ; but that he yielded to some early reform- 
ers, in regard to the manner in which this doctrine should 
be presented, may be true ; for, oh the one hand, was 
Melancthon, with his lion-like spirit, but withal, pos- 
sessed of much kindness and gentleness, which he exerted 
to keep within bounds, and to avoid the extravagance 
that zeal for the truth might have led them into ; on the 
other was Luther, with his good sense and tenacity for 
the truth, yet willing to yield in minor points, to avoid 
strife and contention ; and this may be the case in this 
particular instance ; my opponent contends they had no 
mediator between the Father and the Holy Spirit. I am 
sorry to say my brother has allowed himself to make 
these statements without being correctly informed. It is 
very evident that there is but one God in the universe — 
one living and true God, everlasting — and that in the 
unity of this Godhead, there are three persons of equal 
substance, glory, and eternity, the Father, Word, or Lo- 
gos, and Holy Spirit ; so that these three constitute the 
one living and true God, whom we worship, and who is 
the author of the universe ; and if you remove from the 
Godhead the second person of the Trinity, or Logos, 
that was in the beginning with the Father, you at once 
enter upon the doctrine of atheism ; you annihilate Jeho- 
vah ; you abolish the God of the Bible ; you put him 
out of existence, if you remove from the Godhead the 
third person, which is the Holy Spirit, sent forth from 
the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. You will 
likewise abolish the idea of the existence of one living 
and true God. God the Spirit, we understand to be 
that person, or his agent, employed in the great work of 
human salvation, in awakening and convincing, in the 
conversion, in the sanctification, fitting and qualifying 
the human soul, while a tenant of an earthly tabernacle, 
for an inheritance in \ mortal at the right hand of God. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 29 

I could not better illustrate ray views of the office of the 
Holy Spirit, as the supreme agent, in the sacred work 
and economy of human salvation, than by comparing it 
to the idea of a vast pendulum, fastened to the throne 
of the Eternal, and reaching, in its vibrations, through 
heaven and earth, down to hell. In heaven, causing the 
saints and angels to rejoice — filling all the angelic world 
with unutterable delight. In earth, warning its inhabit- 
ants of unrighteousness and of judgment to come; and 
in hell, executing the just penalties of a violated law, 
upon the hopeless inhabitants of that world of woe. Hence 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three, I assume, are 
one God — one living and true God — and that the em- 
bodiment of these three persons of equal substance, 
power, glory, and eternity, is in the person of Jesus 
Christ, who took upon him, in the womb of the Virgin 
Mary, a human body, in union with the divine nature ; 
and in this association two separate and distinct natures 
were merged in one person, to wit: the Godhead, and 
the humanity ; and this union of two natures, through- 
out the boundless future, was never to be separated. 
That there was, however, a separation between the human 
and the divine natures, during the limited period of three 
days and three nights, which transpired from the cruci- 
fixion to the resurrection, is universally admitted by the 
Trinitarian. This was signified when Christ, amidst 
the agonies of the cross, cried, "My God! my God! 
why hast thou forsaken me V We hold, that upon the 
altar the divine nature was sacred and perfect human 
nature, uncontaminated bv sin. We maintain both a 
passive and active obedience to the divine law, in its 
moral and perceptive parts, so that guile was not found 
in his mouth, but lamb-like innocence, as the man Christ 
Jesus, from the cradle to the cross ; " for it becomes him 
to make the captain of our salvation perfect through suf- 
fering," and that human nature, sanctified by a ceaseless, 
unwavering, and perfect obedience to the divine law, was 
capable of making a suitable atonement for the sins of 



30 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

human nature. Those who were passive in the fall, 
should be passive in the reception of Christ's death, that 
those who were actually guilty, as transgressors of the 
divine law, should be entitled to hope for salvation, upon 
the ground of faith, in the atonement Jesus Christ had 
made for sins that were past, " through the forbearance 
of God," and of a future salvation, by a life wholly con- 
formed to the sacred requirements of the divine law. 
I think I have been sufficiently clear both in stating, and 
in explaining, the position occupied by Trinitarians, with 
regard to the character of God ; the term Son, in regard 
to Jesus Christ, in connection with his human and divine 
nature, we hold that this nature was united and subsisted 
in one person; and this, I think, may be made clear from 
the Word of God, in the course of this investigation. 
My brother says, we make a God of Jesus Christ, though 
we do not exalt the character of Christ as highly as do 
the advocates of the position he occupies. He says his 
views are not Arian, and intimated that they were not 
Socinian ; and I am sure, that if my brother knows, he 
will favor us with the name of his peculiar views upon 
this subject. I should like if he would name them. 

Mr. Summerbell. — Christian. 

Mr. Flood. — A very latitudinarian expression, in- 
deed. How many the beliefs, and even practices, that 
have been baptized into the sacred name of Christian ! It 
would seem as if he was at a loss to determine what were 
the peculiar views he is to advance, so he sees proper to 
baptize the child, and call it by the general name of 
Christian. I might respond in the same way to the 
question : What do you call your views of the doctrine 
of the deity of Jesus Christ ? It would seem very in- 
definite to say, Well, I call them Christian views. Cer- 
tainly I do. I presume no one would suspect me of 
anything else. " They would be Chrisgjpn views," and 
entertained by Christians in all sections of the religious 
world. I maintain the position that Jesus Christ is equal 
in power, majesty and glory, with God the Father ; and 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 31 

that I may definitely understand our mutual positions, I 
wish my brother, who is in the affirmative, to clearly define 
to me what he believes Christ to be ; he has been telling us 
what he is — I will note it down, and then I shall be fully 
prepared to proceed in the investigation of this subject. 
He assures the congregation that the views which I 
represent are contrary to the teachings of the Word of 
God ; but the views he advances, in regard to the charac- 
ter of Christ, makes him inferior to the Father. And 
are such views, I would ask, scriptural ? He quotes 
Clarke again; we shall not differ on this; he thinks the 
man, Christ Jesus, was a man. Does not this seem an 
exception to the passage ? Jesus is said to be the son of 
David, and the son of Abraham. Jesus Christ is here 
allowed to be the son of two men, living at quite remote 
periods from each other. Matthew viii, 20, " The foxes 
have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son 
of Man hath not where to lay his head/' This looks very 
much as though he professed to be a man, inasmuch as 
every son partakes of the essential characteristics and qual- 
ities of his father; for it is an acknowledged principle, in 
philosophy, that like begets like. "Jesus increased in 
wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." 
Here we have an evidence of regular developed physical 
powers and capabilities. John i, 14, "And the Word 
was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his 
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, 
full of grace and truth." Here the two natures are re- 
ferred to in connection ; first, u he was made flesh and 
dwelt among us." What was his flesh ? was it human 
flesh ? we assume it was. The flesh of Jesus Christ was 
the flesh of a human being ; he was a man. 1 Timothy, 
ii, 5, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between 
God and man, the man Christ Jesus." I suppose that 
Dr. Clarke did not commit any very serious blunder 
in theology, when he asserted that Jesus Christ, with 
regard to the human nature, was a human being. I think 
so. Hebrews ii, 14, " Forasmuch then as the children 



32 DISCUSSION* ON THE TRINITY. 

are partakers of flesh and blood, he also, himself, like- 
wise took part of the same, that through death he might 
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the 
Devil, and deliver them, who, through fear of death, 
were all their lifetime subject to bondage ; for, verily, he 
took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him 
the seed of Abraham. Wherefore, in all things it be- 
hooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he 
might be a merciful High Priest in things pertaining to 
God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people ; 
for in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he 
is able to succour them that are tempted." It looks to 
me very much as if he possessed a human nature, if he 
took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of 
Abraham. Here. is a person represented as taking upon 
himself something else — united with him something else; 
and, hence, this is the union of the human with the 
divine nature. Jesus Christ, who in substance, power, 
glory and eternity, is equal to the Father. He took not 
upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.* 
Hebrews iv, 15, u We have a great High-Priest that is 
passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of Gocl, let us 
hold fast our profession; for we have not an high-priest 
which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, 
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without 
sin." Here an allusion is made to kindred sympathies, 
existing between Christ and those with whom he was 
associated by blood. He was capable of sympathizing 
with them, for he himself possessed a similar nature to 
theirs. John iv, 3, " Every spirit that confesseth not 
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 
Now he that denies this position, with regard to the 
physical nature of Jesus Christ, which he assumed while 
here, God coming in the flesh, as the son of David and 
the son of Abraham — every spirit that denieth this 
great truth, is not of God, but must stand rebuked as 
opposed to the teaching of revelation. I complain of 
this, my brother : of the reference made by you in regard 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 33 

to your view of the character of our Saviour. But then 
he inquires, with regard to the power exercised by Jesus 
Christ, who gave this power ? He inquires, did the 
Father give it to him ? I answer in the negative. All 
power rests with God; all power is invested in God the 
Father, God the Son, or Word, or Logos, and God the 
Holy Spirit. All power equally rests in the three per- 
sons of the Godhead. This language is represented as 
conferring upon Christ, for specific objects, with a view 
to the redemption of human nature; and, hence, he uses 
language which would be likely to be understood. All 
power is given into my hands, in heaven and upon earth. 
Notice the phraseology. Shall I use that power in 
violation of the counsel of Heaven, and the council of 
Jehovah ? No ! I, myself, stand intimately associated 
in that council. There are three persons in the God- 
head ; upon me, as a Mediator, now rests the great work 
of accomplishing redemption for the human race ; and, in 
order to its accomplishment, unlimited power must be 
called into requisition ; all power is necessary now, and 
the highest power we can conceive of, is that of giving 
life to the dead. We cannot conceive of greater power 
than producing something out of nothing, and giving 
life where it did not before exist. This power Christ 
declared he possessed in the most positive- sense. But 
with regard to the right to exist, and the power to exist ; 
he has it equal to the Father, in himself. " He hath given 
unto the Son to have life in himself." Hence, Christ 
assumes that he possessed life, and that he gives life. 
First, he possessed power to restore life to those who 
were literally dead, as in the case of the restoration of 
the son of the widow of Nain, who was being borne 
upon the bier to the place of interment. The Saviour 
had compassion for the w T eeping widow, and, to demon- 
strate his almighty power and Godhead, commanded 
them to stop, and called to life again the young man 
that was already dead upon his bier. Again, in the 
restoration of Lazarus, who was raised to life four days 



34 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

after he died, under circumstances peculiarly trying. 
Here was the house occupied by its three inmates, where 
kindness and hospitality toward their Saviour had never 
been wanted. Here Martha had served him ; here Mary 
had sat at his feet and wept, washing his feet with her 
tears, and wiping them with the hairs of her head ; and 
here death had entered and removed their chief support. 
And when he was yet absent from the place, Jesus said 
to his disciples — and who but a God would have been 
able to discover it — " Our brother Lazarus sleepeth." 
But do you recollect the language in which he ap- 
proached the sepulcher? Hadst thou been here, ex- 
claimed the weeping sister, our brother had not died. 
Here was faith in these primitive Christians ; she believed 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. " To whom shall we go, thou 
hast the words of eternal life. If thou hadst been here 
our brother had not died." Such was the sympathy for 
those true Christians, that " Jesus wept." Then, as he 
approached the grave's mouth, preparations were made, 
and with a loud voice he called the sleeping man to life 
again, and forthwith he was restored to his friends. I 
ask, what power, but the power of Jehovah, has control 
over the condition of the dead, to give life where it was 
extinct ? Christ exercised this power. He said, " I say 
unto thee, arise ! " 

Mr. Sttmmerbell's Third address : 

I will just say, that I received my brother's letter, noti- 
fying me of the debate, late last Saturday evening — too 
late for him to have received a reply before starting here, 
or I should have sent him one. My brother closed with 
a good speech, on the glory and power of Christ. We 
believe in his glory ; we trust in his pow T er ; but all his 
power was given to him. Jesus said, John v, 20, " I 
can of myself do nothing. The Father that dwelleth in 
me, he doeth the works." At the grave of Lazarus he 
prayed and thanked the Father for hearing him. My 
opponent next says, that Mary acknowledged that he was 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 35 

God ; for she said, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my bro- 
ther had not died. Mary knew that he was not God, for 
God teas there ; and Martha said, that she knew that if 
he would pray unto God, God would grant him whatever 
he desired. My brother says, that if God gave him all 
power, that this would make him equal with God. But 
I cannot see how this would make him equal with him 
from whom he received all power. The sun imparts its 
light to the moon ; but that does not make the moon 
equal to the sun. My brother says, that " received all 
power," means, that for the work of redemption he 
needed all the combined power of the three persons, and 
that nothing short of this would answer. Does he mean 
that all three combined, have more power than one ? 

Trinitarians have to contend that he was God, and from 
all eternity possessed all power. How could the supreme 
God receive all power ? If he needed all the power of 
the three, then the power of one was finite ; but three 
finites could not make one Infinite. Just as three times 
one thousand miles do not make an infinite distance. 

Here our brother loses his argument ; he is my bro- 
ther, and I do not want him to fall into such difficulties. 
He quotes John, " He that denieth that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh, is anti-Christ." But I believe that 
Jesus Christ came in the flesh, as well as my brother ; 
even more. I believe Jesus' words, John vi, 38, "I came 
down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will 
of him that sent me." It was not God that came down 
from heaven — not to do his own will, but the will of some 
one else who sent HIM. Neither was it his very man, 
for human nature did not exist in heaven before it did on 
earth. My brother's creed says, that God has no body ; 
but if Jesus be his God, his God has a body, and so his 
creed is false. Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood, 
and was tempted in all points as we are ; but did God 
take flesh»and blood ? Jesus saj T s, "a body hast thou pre- 
pared me." Now if this was not God who took this body, 
who was it ? He thinks that Jesus was very man because 



86 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

he was the son of David and Abraham ; bat Rom. i, 1, 

says, u That he was made of the seed of David according to 
the flesh ; but declared to be the Son of God according 
to the spirit of holiness." He also quoted Matt, viii, 20, 
"The son of man hath not where to lay his head." 
Many others have been destitute of a place to lay their 
head ; but this does not prove them God ; nor will Jesus 
thus appearing among us prove him merely man. If he 
reads Genesis he will find three MEN who appeared to 
Abraham, as he sat in the tent door, in the plains of 
Mamre, whose feet were washed, and for whom Abraham 
prepared a kid, bread, etc.; yet Abraham worshiped, or 
made obeisance unto them. To one of them he prayed, 
calling him Jehovah ; so they are called Jehovah, angels 
and men. My brother should show the necessary con- 
nection of his text with his argument. Nothing comes 
of quoting a great number of texts. The question is, Is 
the Trinity in the texts ? Were it in one it would an- 
swer. Now that Jesus had not where to lay his head, 
does not prove the Trinity. 

My brother says, that as he was the son of David, he 
must have partaken of the nature of his father. But 
God was his father. Even that which my brother calls 
very man, had no earthly father ; but God was its father. 
Then, on my brother's own showing, he being the Son 
of God, would partake of God, and be divine. 

He wanted me to name the party at the Nicene council, 
which was neither Arian nor Trinitarian. I said Chris- 
tian. I will read him a little from Neander, Vol. ii, 372 : 

" To form a correct notion of the order of business at 
this council, we must, in the first place, present clearly 
before our minds, the relation of the parties who were 
present. Those who agreed entirely with the doctrine of 
Arius, which was but a small party (only seventeen 
bishops, p. 377,) then the advocates of the Homoousion 
(those now counted Trinitarians), who, likewise, in the 
Eastern church, composed but a comparatively small 
party," (be it remembered that the greater part of the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 37 

council were orientals, i. e. of the Eastern Church), " and 
finally those who occupied the middle ground between 
the two parties, and entertained views similar to those of 
Eusebius, of Cesarea." This, my brother, was that other 
party whom I called Christians, but whom Neander, ii, 
374, calls the more numerous dominant middle party 
who, in vain, strove for peace. Eusebius " laid before 
the council a confession of faith," which distinctly ex- 
pressed the doctrine of Christ's divinity, " composed, for 
the most part, of scriptural phraseology, which was con- 
sidered by the party of Eusebius as being a peculiar 
merit. In the creed of Arius, as in the formula of the 
Homoousion, they especially censured the use of expres- 
sions not conformed to the language of Scripture." 

I read on p. 373, " Many of the decided expressions 
of Arius, concerning the nature of the Son of God, must, 
beyond question, have appeared offensive even to the 
dominant middle party at the council," &c. " A con- 
demnation of these Arian propositions might, doubtless, 
have been easily carried through, if, on the other side, the 
party defending the Homoousion had not also raised an 
opposition to the dominant church doctrine of the East, 
and if certain individuals had not come out as mediators 
between the contending parties," &c. The men of this 
middle party (dominant church party) acted as "medi- 
ators" — u exerted themselves to establish peace" — are 
called the " authors of peace," &c, p. 373. 

Now, that dominant party held precisely our view T s on 
the subject of the Godhead. 

He still persists that the human nature could make a 
sufficient atonement, but does not answer the assertion 
of Clarke, that God will no more accept of man's blood 
than he will of swine's blood. I wish you to mark that ! 
In truth, he has not answered anything. My reference 
to Rev. i, 4, where the grace of the seven spirits is 
invoked, he has not answered, nor has he answered the 
many objections I presented to him, with reference to his 
creed. He has not explained how they baptize in the 



38 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, and a creature; 
mark that ! The creed says that the God and man in 
Christ were never to be divided ; and the hymn says, that 
" God, the mighty Maker, died ;" but he says that they 
were separate three days, and that God did not die. His 
explanation of the Holy Ghost is, that it is like a pendu- 
lum, attached to the throne, swinging through heaven, 
earth, and hell ; that is a very good idea, but better for 
us than for him, though I do not like the figure. But he 
does not believe that God the Holy Ghost is like a pen- 
dulum, attached to the throne, swinging through heaven, 
earth, and hell! I believe the Holy Ghost is the Spirit 
of God ; but he believes that it is the eternal God — the 
infinite One — and to attach Him to the throne and swing 
Him down to hell, is very wrong. He says, that the 
three make one God, and if one were removed, then 
Jehovah is gone, and the universe is left an orphan. 
Very well ! Let us see ; they say that God died, " when 
God, the mighty Maker, died ;" and Tertullian says, that 
God was not always a father, since he could not be a 
father until he had a son. My brother's constitution 
(creed) says, that Christ was made up of very God and 
very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and 
buried. If God w r as dead, and he could not be divided, 
then the whole three w T ere dead. He must account for 
this ; we can not. Let him explain ! He says the Old 
Testament Jews believed in the Trinity ; but I answer, 
No. I would like him to quote the text. A friend of 
mine who was present in a New York synagogue, asked 
the Rabbi for an explanation of the word " Elohim." A 
Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, " Why that 
has reference to the three persons in the Trinity," when 
a Jew stepped forward, and said that he must not men- 
tion that word again, or they would have to compel him 
to leave the house ; for it was not permitted to mention 
the name of any strange God in the synagogue. 

The objection that the Jews do not believe in Christ, 
does not affect the argument ; if they believed that the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 39 

Trinity was found in the word Elohim, they would 
admit it, whether they admitted that Christ had yet come 
or not. Barnes also gives up the divine nature of the 
Son ; he acknowledges that the Nicene fathers did not 
admit the proper divinity of the Son, as they made 
Christ to be God of God ; that is, one God, derived from 
another God. Thus Clarke and Barnes give up the 
Trinitarianism of the Nicene creed ; and as brother 
Flood agrees with Clarke, he must give it up also. I 
will now proceed with my argument, showing their con- 
flicting views of the Son of God. 

Clarke says, "The conjunction of these two terms, Son 
and Eternity, is absolutely impossible; as they imply 
essentially different and opposite ideas." 

11 The enemies of Christ's divinity have, in all ages 5 
availed themselves of this incautious method of treating 
this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the ad- 
vantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ." 

"This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, destroys the 
deity of Christ." "Now if this deity be taken away, 
the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined." " On 
this ground the atonement of Christ can not be of infinite 
merit," " and, consequently, could not purchase pardon 
for the offences of mankind, nor give any right to, or 
possession of, eternal glory." " The very use of this 
phrase is both absurd and dangerous." " Therefore, let 
all who value Jesus and their salvation, abide by the 
Scriptures." 

Rev. Mr. C. L. Brown, member of the Eastern Gen- 
esee Conference of the M. E. Church, in a book sold by 
the M. E. Book Concern, in Cincinnati, says, in reply 
to the question, "Do you believe that Christ is the 
Son of God ?" " Not in your sense of the term : he is 
every way equal with the Father ; that — whenever the 
term Son is applied to his divine nature, it does not ex- 
press such an actual relation as Father and Son, but 
is applied to him solely in view of his incarnation." 
Mr. Brown says, p. 36, "The merit of the atonement 



40 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

depended not so much upon the extent of the suffering, as 
it did upon the character." u We believe that he brought 
to the work a human nature, free from moral taint — pure 
as that of Adam in pristine innocence ; and in that spot- 
less nature, fulfilled the law and made it honorable." 

So that with them the sufferer on the cross is dignified 
by being called, as good as Adam ; and his greatness is 
dispensed with for such goodness. Horror of horrors ! 
A mere man as good as Adam, and yet Clarke says, that 
God will no more accept of man's blood — it can no more 
appease God — than swine's blood. 2 Sam. xxi, 10. 

Albert Barnes, Presbyterian, agrees with Clarke, that 
the Son of God is not eternal or equal with the Father. 

Barnes, Heb. i, " He was in intimate union with the 
Father, and was one with him in some respects ; though 
in certain others there was a distinction. I do not see 
any evidence, in the Scriptures, of the doctrine of 
eternal generation ; and it is certain that that doctrine 
militates against the proper eternity of the Son of 
God. The fathers of the Christian church, it is be- 
lieved, held that the Son of God, as to his divine nature, 
as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. 
Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as begotten of the 
Father, before all worlds, God of God, etc. They held 
with one voice, that he was God ; but it w T as in this man- 
ner. But this is incredible and impossible ; a derived 
being can not, in any proper sense, be God." See also 
Eom. i. Yet, though Barnes here denies the eternity of 
the Son as impossible ; yet, on John x, 34, he contradicts 
himself, by saying, that "Son of God is a divine title, 
implying equality with GodP Thus, also, Barnes gives 
up all the Christian fathers, as not holding to the true 
and proper Godhead of Christ ; but though holding him 
to be God, yet derived — that is, a derived God. 

Thus both Clarke, the great Methodist commentator, 
and Barnes, the Presbyterian, give up the divinity of the 
Son ; and Barnes gives up the proper Trinitarianism of 
the Nicene fathers ; which my brother must also give up. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 41 

Wood, seeing that such views destroy all Trinity, says, 
that "Christ is the eternal Son of God " — and that, "if the 
personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be given 
up, there must either be three distinct Gods ; or but one 
person manifested in three different characters ; " and 
avers, that " He is the eternal Son of God, equal with the 
Father." — Bib. Die, published for the Methodist, etc., 
1813. 

Christ, however, says, " My Father is greater than I." 
Wesley said, that he thought that his brother Charles 
expressed it best, as follows : 

u From thee, in one eternal now, 
Thy Son, thy offspring flowed, 
An everlasting Father, thou, 
As everlasting God." — Clarke on Luke i, 35. 

Eev. C. L. Brown, says, " Who then was his mother? 
Who was his mother V? 

Wood, says, " No man that doubts of his (the eter- 
nal Son) being the only true and most high God, can, in 
consistency with common sense, allow himself to be a 
Christian ; " thus plainly unchristianizing my brother. 

But Clarke, maintains that " If Christ be the Son of 
God, as to his divine nature, then, he cannot be eternal.' 5 

Wood, thinks that " a number of texts represent him 
as God's proper and only begotten Son, prior to all deri- 
vation of him." 

Lutheran Bib. Theology, Storr & Flatt, etc., makes 
both the divine Son to be a created God, and also deifies 
the humanity, p 417. " The name, Son of God, is given 
to the man Jesus, because, according to the will of the 
Father, he is partaker of his divine perfections ; inasmuch 
as the well beloved Son of the Father, who in consequence 
of (not his own self-existence) his very close union with 
him, (the Father) is himself God, etc., has united him- 
self to the man Jesus in a union so close, that no other 
union like it, is to be found between God and any other 
man, and indeed any other creature." 

Here we have the divine Son made God by his union 
4 



42 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

with God ; and the man Jesus, by the union, becomes 
God; see p. 420 ; so that this man has divine govern- 
ment, divine honor, and is Lord of all — has all power in 
heaven and in earth, p. 421. 

Note ; thus they make the divine Son, God, by union 
with God — the human son God by union with the divine ; 
and yet deny divinity to the Son altogether, and accuse 
each other of blasphemy for denying it : and next use 
the same irreverence to the Son. 

Clarke, on John i, 1, refers to the Indian Trinity, as a 
duplicate of the creed. 

Neander says, that " such a view is wholly at war 
with, and opposed to, Christianity." — Nean. i, 573. 

Wood; " How often is his character of Son plainly dis- 
tinguished from his official character of Christ." 

Clarke; " The doctrine of the eternal sonship, destroys 
the deity of Christ. Now, if this deity be taken away, 
the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined." 
"On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have 
been of infinite merit, and consequently, could not 
PURCHASE PARDON! for the offences of mankind, 
nor give any right to a possession of eternal glory. The 
very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous ; 
therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salva- 
tion, abide by the Scriptures." 

Wood; " If Jesus be not the supreme God, he was a 
setter up of idolatry, encouraging men to worship him- 
self; and Mahomet, who zealously opposed such worship, 
must be a valuable reformer." — Clarke, on Luke i, 35, 
and Wood, on Christ, 248. 

Note. We notice here, great irreverence for Jesus ; if 
thus, and so is not the case, then Jesus was a setter up 
of idolatry — a noted blasphemer, and the Jews did well 
to crucify him. 

Mr. Flood's Third reply: 

My friend Summerbell, I am pleased to see, possesses 
a very good spirit, though he has been toiling through a 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 43 

serious agony. Objects of distress always excite my sym- 
pathy. I am a very sympathetic man. In fact, I think it 
would be well to make the confession, that sympathizing 
w T ith distress, as I do at all times, it would be so great 
an affliction to me, should my brother continue to make 
such calls upon my sympathetic feelings, that I know 
not how I should bear it ; I hope, therefore, my brother 
will strengthen his nerves for my sake, that I may not 
be excited by any effects he may see fit to introduce. 
With respect to the arrangement for this discussion, I 
must repeat, that I stated the simple facts, this morning. 
I had no knowledge that this discussion was positively 
to take place, until I came within a few miles' ride of 
this town; my brother did not answer my letter ; so I 
had not the slightest intimation that my brother Sum- 
merbell would be here. I am very glad that he is here, 
and I am quite happy that I am here too, and that we 
are all here. The points of argument, with this admis- 
sion, that neither of us concede the subject, in the 
existence of the human nature of Jesus Christ, to his 
manifestations on this earth, here seems to me a clearly 
implied admission of the position assumed, that, Jesus 
Christ, whatever may be his true relation, possesses two 
separate and distinct natures. This is one point in the 
argument, and if designed for any thing, was designed 
by my good brother to be directed to this point. That 
two natures, whatever should be those natures, in the 
person of Jesus Christ, he took it for granted, is already 
acceded ; now, if w r e can ascertain what these natures 
consisted of — what they really are — we shall accomplish 
one principal point in the investigation of this part of 
our subject. It is clearly to be inferred, that there was 
a nature of some description, which had a previous 
existence ; it is here admitted, (and I think my oppo- 
nent will not question it,) that Jesus Christ already pos- 
sesses a human nature ; that he was the son of Abraham, 
and the son of David ; that he was the son of man, and 
that he was a man, not less than one hundred and fifty 



44 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

passages in the New Testament, affirm, stating, in some 
form or other, the doctrine of Christ's humanity ; the fact, 
that he was a man, is stated in phraseology sufficiently 
clear, that no other idea can be drawn from the language 
itself; and that he claimed to be a man, and as to his 
flesh united by kindred blood to humanity, in that 
human nature, as I showed in my previous remarks, he 
sustained an entire exemption from all evil, yielding a 
passive and actual obedience to the requirements of the 
divine law in the human nature, in connection with the 
divine nature ; was qualified to become the captain of 
our salvation, and accomplish the work of human re- 
demption, to redeem human nature by price and by 
power. On the one hand, he is the Son of God, united 
to human nature by blood, as well as by association ; 
on the other hand, he was united to God by his divine 
nature, one with the Father in substance, and in power, 
and was capable, from this very consideration, to become 
a perfect Saviour, able to sympathize with the distresses 
of the human race, in their fallen condition ; realizing at 
once their necessities, and on the ground of his absolute 
perfection as God, capable of meeting every exigency, 
and meeting its most extended demands ; purchasing 
salvation for all them that obey him. He quotes Nean- 
der, Vol. ii, 372, and shows from this, that there were 
two parties at the time of the JNicene convention, by 
whom these articles, known as the Nicene Creed, were 
formed. At that time there were two parties ; the one 
known by the name of Arian, the other by that of Trini- 
tarian. However, he insists that the finishing touch, to 
Trinitarianism, was given subsequent to this ; but then 
he tells us, that there was another party, supposed to be 
the dominant party; and then my brother goes on to 
suppose, that this was the Christian body; and that 
doubtless from that majority, the dominant party, the 
true Christian party, descended to the Christian church, 
as we have it at the present day. I will now direct your 
attention to Dr. Mosheim ; we have a little account 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 45 

here. The Arians denied the essential divinity of 
Jesus Christ, and the majority, who were, I suppose, of 
the Christian church, decided in favor of the Trinitarian 
party. Well now, if such a council should be assembled 
to-day, in this little city, composed of the majority, I 
question most sincerely, whether a production similar to 
the Nicene creed would proceed from such a body of 
men. Yet, he thinks, they were in the majority. We 
quote now Dr. Mosheim, p. 126, " For those who, in 
the main, were far from being attached to the party of 
Arius, found many things reprehensible, both in the de- 
crees of the council, and in the forms of expression which 
it employed, to explain the controverted points ; while 
the Arians, on the other hand, left no means untried to 
heal their wounds, and to recover their place, and their 
credit in the church ; and their efforts were crowned 
with the desired success : for a few years after the coun- 
cil of Nice, an Arian priest, who had been recommended 
to the Emperor, in the dying words of his sister Con- 
stantia, found means to persuade him, that the condem- 
nation of Arius was utterly unjust, and was rather 
occasioned by the malice of his enemies, than by their 
zeal for the truth. In consequence of this, the Emperor 
recalled him from banishment in the year 330, — repealed 
the laws that had been enacted against him, and per- 
mitted his chief protector, Eusebius, of Mcomedia, and 
his vindictive faction, to vex and oppress the partisans 
of the Nicene council, in various ways. Athanasius, 
bishop of Alexandria, was one of those who suffered 
most from the violent measures of the Arian party. 
Invincibly firm in his purpose, and deaf to the most 
powerful solicitations and entreaties, he obstinately re- 
fused to restore Arius to his former rank and office. 
On this account, he was deposed by the council holden 
at Tyre, in the year 335 ; and was afterward banished 
into Gaul, while Arius and his followers were, with 
great solemnity, reinstated in their privileges, and re- 
ceived into the communion of the church. The people 



46 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

of Alexandria, unmoved by these proceedings in favor 
of Arias, persisted in refusing to grant him a place 
among their Presbyters ; upon which, the Emperor in- 
vited him to Constantinople, in the year 336, and ordered 
Alexander, the bishop of that city, to admit him to his 
communion ; but before this order could be put in exe- 
cution, Arius died in the Imperial City, in a very dismal 
manner ; and his sovereign did not long survive him." 
This was a political transaction, five years subsequent to 
the assembly of the Nicene council, by which were re- 
stored to Arius certain privileges that had been forfeited. 
Had it been our fortune to have lived then, we might 
have put in a plea for a little sympathy. But the times 
are changed. " Valens, on the other hand, favored the 
Arians ; and his zeal for their cause exposed their 
adversaries, the Nicenians, in the eastern provinces, to 
many severe trials, and much suffering." — Mosheim, 
Vol. i, p. 127. 

Here we have evidence of what the Christian parties 
were at that time. They do not seem to have been 
divided in the manner my brother appears to think. 
But, admitting that the Christian church was in the 
ascendant, we must believe that Christians were in favor 
of the Trinity, for the majority had given their sanction 
to the Nicene creed. He refers again to me, by saying, 
that he believed I had been engaged in quoting texts of 
Scripture from Mr. Jimeson : " I pray you have me 
excused." Passages of Scripture were selected from 
different parts of the Old and New Testaments ; I do 
not know that Mr. Jimeson was consulted in the quota- 
tion of a single passage. My brother seems anxious 
that I should say something about the seven spirits ; 
what that has to do with the question of the equality of 
Jesus Christ with the Father, I do not pretend to say ; but 
a man of his perception may be able to discern, but not 
being able myself to perceive the association, I pass it 
over ; I simply say, that grace is favor ; it may be desi- 
rable to have the favor of all beings, in more favorable 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 47 

circumstances than we are, and under the circumstances, 
the grace of the seven spirits ; this language was uttered 
by one under inspiration, who, of course, knew more of 
the offices of the spirits of the heavenly world than our- 
selves ; and hence, I suppose, it is strictly right that we 
should desire to have the grace, or favor, of all good be- 
ings, from the highest, even to the humblest saint that lives 
upon this earth ; this is all I have to say upon the subject 
at present, with respect to the offices of the spirit, as the 
great agent in carrying forward the designs of Jehovah, in 
heaven, and earth, and hell. I confess, I felt surprised 
that my brother should indulge in the kind of phrase- 
ology he employed ; I thought there was nothing irrev- 
erent in the illustrations I used. I represented by a figure, 
or metaphor, the agency, or the office of the Holy Ghost, 
in heaven, earth, and hell ; in one, as the source of re- 
joicing and triumph ; in the other, as awakening con- 
version and sanctification ; and in the third, executing 
the just penalties of the divine law ; and I pass with this 
allusion, that I would not willingly indulge in a single 
expression that could, by any possibility, be tortured into 
irreverence. He savs, the Jews did not believe in the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and instances a minister who 
was threatened with expulsion from a New York syna- 
gogue, for pronouncing the word expressive of the Trin- 
ity ; he could not be tolerated on account of introducing 
the name of a strange God. Is he not aware that the 
Jews are infidels, everyone of them, and that they have 
never ceased to reject Jesus ; " that thou, being a man, 
makest thyself God," is the ground on which they have 
predicated their rejection of him, and their consequent 
contempt for his person. I ask, did Christ once question 
their position, when they asserted that he, being a man, 
made himself equal with God ? Hear the language of 
inspiration : " being in the form of God, he thought it no 
robbery to be equal with God ;" Christ thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God. So says the Apostle 
Paul, who thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, 



48 DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 

he justified himself, and persisted in his course, though 
rejected by man upon this very ground ; but my brother 
is in error ; the Jews have changed their ground with 
respect to those passages that were regarded by their 
fathers as applicable to their messiah, since they have 
rejected Jesus as the true messiah ; see Isaiah 53. The 
character of the true messiah is presented by the Jewish 
church, up to the time of the introduction of Christianity, 
in these passages, w T hich are applicable to their promised 
messiah ; but when they came to the conclusion to reject 
the Saviour, and to be infidel, then they found it neces- 
sary, that they might sustain their position against the 
invasions of the Christian church, which were continually 
thrust upon them, by quoting other authorities on that 
ground; and what is wonderful, they have distorted 
those passages which apply to Christ, applying them 
to themselves ; and yet my brother comes up here and 
tells us, that the Jews do not believe in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and would reject a person from their syna- 
gogues who would pronounce the name. I ask, Could a 
minister perform the rite of Christian baptism in a Jewish 
synagogue? The very moment he uttered, "I baptize 
thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost," he w T ould certainly be treated in the 
same manner, as he who gave his influence, as to the 
meaning of a single word. We now come to the point 
that threw my brother into paroxysms of distress ; he 
quotes, " If Jesus is not the eternal God, he was a setter 
up of idolatry ; and Mahomet was to be preferred be- 
fore him ;" this language was used in reference to Jesus 
Christ, if he were not the eternal God. I took it as from 
Clarke ; this seems to give the brother a good deal of 
trouble; but does he not read, "Thou shalt have no 
other gods before me? God is a jealous God, and will not 
suffer his worship to be given to another." Again, 
there was an occasion when a being of exalted character, 
from his appearance, was about to receive acts of devo- 
tion at the hand of a servant of God ; namely, from 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 49 

John, in the Isle of Patmos ; the evangelist would have 
fallen down to worship him, but he was rebuked at 
once ; u See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant;" 
and though I appear to thee, as a being tangible to your 
sense, and superior in glory to anything you have pre- 
viously beheld, I am not God. These brighter rays 
that you see around me, are the tokens of my heavenly 
triumph, and surround the redeemed in the Heaven of 
heavens ; they are not my own, but borrowed rays from 
the Sun of Eighteousnessi, by whose blood I have been 
fitted for this exalted state. I indulge in this paraphrase 
on the passage : I am not a proper object of worship — see 
that thou do it not. Did Christ treat his worshipers 
in this manner ? Did the human nature create the just 
jealousy of Jehovah against any other being ? In the 
person of Jesus Christ, dwells the fullness of my God, 
bodily; he is an object of my devotions, for in him 
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. But 
the manner of this worship, will be a question to be ex- 
amined hereafter. My opponent quotes from Jimeson, 
and says, if Christ is not God, he was an impostor ; 
this, of all things else, seems most deeply to penetrate 
the soul of my good brother ; that he could use such- 
language with regard to Christ ; and he says, if Christ 
is not God ; but then, if he is God,, it does not turn out 
that he is an impostor. These little if s, have a great 
deal to do in determining serious questions ; if, and if, 
materially alters the case. 

Mr. Summerbell's Fourth address : 

" If," and " if," says my brother Flood; but I leave it 
to you, my friends, whether they would not have been 
more Christian in saying, "If Jesus Christ be not the 
eternal God, we are mistaken" rather than saying, "if 
he be not the eternal God, he is an impostor." This 
would have been a great deal better. There is a good 
deal hangs upon this little " if," as my brother intimates ; 
but /would not hang upon if 's at all. He quotes, "God 
5 



50 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." I do 
not see that this proves anything for my brother. Yes, 
God was in Christ. " It is not I (said Jesus) that do the 
works, but the Father that dwelleth in me." He should 
prove that God was Christ, and that Christ was God ; 
not that God was in Christ ; that is my brother's busi- 
ness. Because a man in Revelations refuses to let John 
worship him, my brother thinks there is a discrepancy in 
my worshiping the Son of God ; but I can not see any. 
I am willing to obey God, and run all risks. The Deca- 
logue says, "thou shalt have no other gods before me ;" 
it does not say, "ye shall have no other gods before 
m" This me ungods the " other two persons," for the 
three persons do not speak and say "us," but one, me. 
He says the Jews reject Christ ; but it is on the word 
"Elohim" and not on Christ, that they were arguing. 
He said that the Jews were Trinitarians, and, if so, 
they would have acknowledged the Trinity in Elohim, 
whether they acknowledged Christ had come or not. I 
did not bring this forward as a proof on the question, 
but to show the opinion of the Jews on the word Elohim, 
in answer to my brother's appeal to them. My brother 
says that the Apostle Paul affirms that Jesus Christ was 
equal with God, and he will leave it for me to settle with 
the Apostle ; but I have no controversy with the Apostle. 
No ! I proved from Dr. Macknight that Paul did not say 
that Jesus was equal with God, but that it was the trans- 
lators who said it. So there is nothing to settle between 
Paul and me. He again joins with the Jews on John 
x, 34, where they accuse Christ of making himself equal 
with God ; but Jesus repelled the charge, saying, "Many 
good works do I show you, for which of these do ye 
stone me ? and they said, for a good work we stone thee 
not, but for blasphemy ; and that because that thou, be- 
ing a man, makest thyself God, for lie said I am the 
Son of God. And Jesus answered them, Is it not 
written in your law, I said ye are gods ? if, therefore, he 
called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 51 

the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the 
Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blas- 
phemest, because I said, I am the Son of God ?" Jesus 
told them plainly that he only claimed to be the Son of 
God. You see my brother should remember these things. 
He said the Jews are infidels ; I admit it ; I did not 
quote them as authority, but he appealed to them against 
me, and joins them in saying that Jesus made himself 
equal with God. My brother accuses us of being Arians, 
and of persecuting, (he quotes from Mosheim, i, 109). I 
quoted from Dr. Neander that we were not Arians ; this 
is higher authority than Mosheim ; his work is emi- 
nently better and a later one. I now refer him to Mo- 
sheim, Yol. i, p. 109. Maclaine, the learned translator 
of Mosheim, says of those who accused Eusebius, of 
Cesarea, of Arianism, " All, however, that these writers 
prove, is, that Eusebius maintained that a certain dis- 
parity and subordination subsisted between the persons 
in the Godhead. If we suppose this to have been his 
opinion, it will not follow that he was an Arian, unless 
that word be taken in a very extensive and improper 
sense. Nothing is more common than the abusive ap- 
plication of this term to persons who have entertained 
opinions opposite to those of Arius." My brother falls 
into the same error, and calls us Arians. The larger party, 
at the Council of Nice, was not Arian. I refer him again 
to the party there represented by Eusebius, of Cesarea, in 
Palestine, who held our views of Christ. My brother, 
all along, instead of following me, has been leading off 
in affirmative propositions ; thus, instead of reviewing 
my speech, he calls me off to correct him. I have read 
to him from Dr. Barnes, against the Trinitarianism of the 
Nicene creed ; that it destroys the deity of Christ alto- 
gether. Clarke denies the Trinitarianism of the Nicene 
creed, also. Now, if they were Trinitarians, would they 
have drawn up such a creed as they did ? My brother 
wants to know how they came to draw up such a creed 
as they did, if they were Christians ? I will tell you ; it 
was by the influence of the Emperor ; he laid his heavy 



52 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

hand into the scale. That was what made the majority. 
He again intimates that they were Arians and persecuted. 
When he speaks of us as Arians, just set it down for 
nothing; the Arians were of a different school. I do 
not wish to father their sins ; we have enough of our 
own. He says, Christ paid the price to redeem us. Did 
he pay it to God ? or whom did he pay ? Did God re- 
ceive the amount for our salvation in suffering ? My 
brother gets up making fun of the feeling I manifested 
in relation to the sufferings of the crucified Jesus, and 
the severe language used against him by Methodist 
authors. I shall leave my brother to have all the fun to 
himself. He says, that I admit that Jesus had two 
natures. No ! 1 alluded to his own doctrine in speaking 
of two natures ; that it could not have been the human 
nature that came down from heaven before it went there, 
nor the divine that came not to do its own will. But 
his argument claims not only two natures, but two he- 
ings — two whole natures — one whole God, and one whole 
man. There may be two natures in a block of wood ; 
but two persons, one an eternal, infinite God, and the 
other a finite man ; one existing from all eternity, a be- 
ing without beginning of days, the other a man a few 
years old, are not two natures merely, but two beings. I 
have thus answered my opponent. I will now resume 
my argument on the contradictions among orthodox min- 
isters upon this doctrine. 

Dr. Jimeson, the able expositor of the XXY Articles, 
whom my brother has here with him, and approves, 
says : " If Jesus were not God, the authors of the Gospels 
and the Epistles must have adopted a very dangerous 
style." " To the Jews Christ constantly proposed him- 
self as the very and eternal God." P. 78. 

Jesus said : "I ascend to my Father and to your 
Father, to my God and to your God." John xx, 17. " If I 
honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is my Father that 
honoreth me, of whom ye say, that he is your God." 
John viii, 54. 

Jimeson says : "If he is not the true God, Christ him- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 53 

self, as well as his Apostles, must have practiced the 
grossest possible deception, and are therefore unworthy a 
name in the history of the world.' 5 lb., p. 79. That is, if 
my creed be not true, then I am not mistaken ; but Christ 
practiced the grossest possible deception, and is unwor- 
thy ! &c. 

Wood says : " If Christ be not God, the Jews did well 
to crucify him as a noted blasphemer that made himself 
equal with God." Art. Christ. 

Jesus still said: " My Father is greater than I." 

Wood continues : " Then they did well to persecute his 
Apostles, who represented him as the object of worship." 

The Apostles said : " To us there is none other God but 
one ; for though there be that are called gods, whether 
in heaven or on earth, as there be lords many and gods 
many ; but unto us there is but one God, the Father. 5 ' 
1 Cor. iv, 4-8. 

What words are these ? If — if our conclusions are not 
true, then Jesus was a blasphemer. Thus the Son of the 
living God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 
and truth, the Judge of quick and dead, is tried by the 
Methodist ministers, on the charge, that unless he is the 
eternal God, he was a noted blasphemer and a setter up 
of idolatry, and that the Jews did well to crucify him ; 
and Mahomet is chosen in his stead. They do not say, 
if Jesus be not the eternal God, then we were mistaken. 
Oh, no ; they are orthodox ! But, then, Tie was mis- 
taken — he was a setter up of idolatry, and the Jews did 
well to crucify him. My dear brother ! in what com- 
pany are you ? Dear friends ! sweet friends ! can you 
fellowship such a system ? You may have thought for- 
merly that it was only Christ's followers, a poor despised 
company of Christians, who were cursed ; but here you 
see Christ and his Apostles are not spared ! No allow- 
ances are made for the mistakes of fallible men ! But 
if our creed is not right, then Jesus was an impostor, a 
setter up of idolatry ; the Jews did well to crucify him, 
and to persecute his Apostles. Do you not remember 



54 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

that it is written of some, that they have crucified the 
Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame ? And 
does not this look like its fulfillment ? Can you not see 
him even now wounded ? See his hands bleed again in 
the palms, and see the blood oozing out of his feet ? See 
the purple tide flowing out of his side, running down to 
the ground ? See his temples all torn again with the 
thorny crown ? See them smite him with the palms of 
their hands ? See them spit in his face, and reject him ? 
Hark, hear them say, " If Christ be not the eternal God, 
the Jews did well to crucify him ! " Does not the Spirit 
whisper in your hearts, u This doctrine is Antichrist, 
which denieth the Father and the Son ? " Jesus is again 
rejected and set at naught ! Upon his back again are 
seen the furrows of the cruel scourge. Shall we ask 
him, what are these wounds in thy hands ? Then shall 
he answer, " Those with which I was wounded in the 
house of my friends." Zechariah xiii, 6. 

Yet Jesus, most blasphemed and rejected, still prays 
for them, " Father, forgive them, they know not what 
they do." Still they cry — those who thank God that 
they are not as other men — and look upon others with 
pious horror ; they say, " If Jesus was not God, the Jews 
did well to crucify him, and to persecute his Apostles!" 
And these are the great men in the Methodist church : 
Wood, of the Bible Dictionary ; Mattison and Brown, 
the exterminators of heretics; Jimeson, the able ex- 
pounder of the XXV Articles ; Clarke, the great com- 
mentator; and Bishop Watson, the oracle; and these 
have differed no more from Barnes, the great Presby- 
terian, and Stoor and Flatt, the Lutherans, &c, than 
among themselves. 

I do not like the use of such language concerning 
Christ. It. does not look as though they reverenced him 
enough. I do not wish to be hard on them, but we 
should not defend such a system of religion. It does not 
exist in their hearts but in their heads ; but called ortho- 
dox it passes current, even though it lead men to speak 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 55 

thus of Christ. I say with Jesus, "Father, forgive them, 
they know not what they do." 

I will now present forty-four sentences, proving that 
Jesus Christ is distinct from God in person. 

1. Christ is God's. 

2. He is God's Son. 

3. He is God's sent. 

4. He is God's servant. 

5. He is at God's right hand. 

6. God gave his Son ; but the Son did not. 

7. God has a Son ; but the Son has not. 

8. God is the Father of Jesus Christ; but the Son is 

not. 

9. God is invisible; but the Son is not. 

10. God has no body ; but the Son has. 

11. Their God is three persons; the Son is but one. 

12. God never prays ; but the Son does. 

13. God is not a mediator; but the Son is. 

14. God has no Father ; but the Son has. 

15. God never gives thanks. 

16. God is never second. 

17. God has no God. 

18. God never sacrifices his own will. 

19. God does not receive his words from another. 

20. God does not receive his power of another. 

21. None creates, saves, or judges, by God. 

22. Nothing is unknown to God. 

23. There is nothing that God can not do of himself. 

24. God will never be subject to another. See 1 Cor. 

xv, 34. 

25. God was not a sacrifice. 

26. God was not scourged, spit upon, or buffeted. 

27. God did not bear his cross. 

28. God never forsook God. 

29. God did not come out from God, nor ascend up to 

God. 

30. God never said, My Father is greater than I. 

31. God did not receive his life of another. 



56 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

32. God was never sent by another. 

33. God was never dead, nor buried. 

34. God performs all his own works in his own name. 

35. God never looks up to another. 

36. God never became poor for our sakes. 

37. God was not made a little lower than the angels. 

38. God is never called the angel of God. 

39. God is not at the right hand of God. 

40. God is not the Lamb of God. 

41. God never offered himself to God. 

42. God never made satisfaction to God. 

43. God is not a man, neither the Son of man. 

44. God is supreme, the Father of all. 

I hope that my brother will take up each of these forty- 
four arguments, each one of which shows that Jesus 
Christ is distinct in person from God, and, conse- 
quently, can not be the God that he differs from. If I 
produced no more than one discrepancy, he would be 
bound to clear it up, or to renounce his system ; but here 
are forty-four, and we can produce hundreds and thou- 
sands of texts to the same import. 

Let me now call your attention to God, as revealed in 
his word. The universe of worlds rolling on high, 
reveals his glory. Day unto day uttereth speech ; and 
night unto night showeth knowledge. Every atom of 
creation — every star sparkling on high — proves his wis- 
dom, power, and goodness. 

1. Though God has never been seen. 

2. Yet the universe will continually remind us of his 
existence. 

3. The glories of the shining worlds, and the adapta- 
tion of nature to all our wants, prove his goodness. 

4. The vastness of creation proves his power. 

5. Every atom of the physical, with every intelligence 
of the spiritual worlds prove his wisdom. And, 

6. The perfect adaptation of ail, proves his unity. 
Nine proper names belong to God, viz : 



DISCUSSION OK THE TRINITY. 57 

1. Jehovah, Jah, Ehejah; are three denoting self 
existence. 

2. El, Eloah, Elohim: are three denoting his. 
power. 

3. Adonai, Shaddai, and Jehovah Tsebaoth; are 
three denoting government. 

These are generally translated Jehovah, God, and 
Lord. 

God's power is called omnipotence; his wisdom, om- 
niscience ; his goodness, blessedness ; his universality, 
omnipresence ; and the perfection of his nature, infinity. 
He is unequaled in majesty, glory, power, and eternity. 
There is not a being in the universe but is dependent on 
him for life, happiness, power, and all that they enjoy ; 
while God is independent of all, underived, unbegotten, 
uncreated, uncaused, self-existent, independent. As is 
the difference between any given distance or quantity, 
and infinity — between any given time and eternity, 
such is the difference between the most perfect created 
being in the universe, and the supreme Being. Yet as 
the insect of a day supposes time to be eternity, and 
mortal man -to be God ; so man, in his turn, is ever in- 
clined to worship the greatness which dazzles his intel- 
lect ; and to imagine that power supreme which he can 
not comprehend. 

That there are intermediate principalities, and powers, 
and thrones, and dominions, the great Book of heaven 
clearly informs us. And that we might, ere this, have 
become better informed upon this infinitely interesting 
subject, had not the key of knowledge been removed by 
priestcraft, no informed mind can doubt. But reason 
has been denounced as fit only for skeptics ; and inves- 
tigation, as sapping the foundation of truth. 

The philosopher, unless willing to be denounced and 
burnt as a heretic, must crucify his understanding to 
Justin, or Athanasius, or Calvin. And yet, we doubt 
not, but that even persecution has been overruled to our 
good. Had John Bunyan not been persecuted, he would 



58 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

not now have been known. His Pilgrim's Progress was 
written during his twelve years' confinement in prison for 
heresy. It is the bruised rose that imparts the sweetest fra- 
grance ; and the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the 
church. Eighteen hundred years ago they led to be cruci- 
fied one whom the chief priests called seditious and a blas- 
phemer; but the effects of his death, each succeeding year, 
cause great joy in heaven, and great terror in hell ; for 
the blood of that just One is saving the world. It must 
needs be that offenses come ; but woe unto that man, of 
whom the offense cometh. Institutions of learning are 
erected ; colleges are built ; seminaries founded ; the 
dead languages are studied; the fields of science are 
explored ; and students over the midnight lamp, pray 
to heaven for aid, and seek for the deep things of 
God, and yet, are forced to submit to have their intel- 
lect chained to the chariot wheels of past generations, 
and to receive such homeopathic doses of knowledge as 
our stringent forefathers had obtained, or chose to com- 
municate, and deigned to deal out to us as articles of 
faith. Every phrase concerning God — every phrase con- 
cerning the Son — every phrase concerning the Spirit— 
every phrase concerning angels, has become stereotyped. 
The supreme majesty of Jehovah must be worshiped 
under the barbarous appellations of Triune ; Blessed 
Trinity ; Three-one, God-man ; Second Person ; Third 
Person: while Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omni- 
presence, become the most common household phrases. 
The time once was, when a Moses, or Joshua, in approach- 
ing the heavenly majesty, took off their shoes ; the time 
has since been that those who would thus dare investi- 
gate a manifested deity, would put off their lives. These 
people have considered "ignorance as the mother of de- 
votion," — devotion to a priest, — a golden calf, or to the 
Virgin Mary, or patron saint. 

In consequence of this interdict on the knowledge of 
God, man has been driven from the most sublime sub- 
ject of religion or philosophy ; and the contemplation 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 59 

of heavenly subjects has been rendered uninteresting, 
and essays upon that subject tame, jejune, and monoto- 
nous, while innumerable passages of Scripture, of most 
vital importance, are abandoned as unintelligible. Igno- 
rance has crushed the rising thought ; bigotry has usurped 
the throne of knowledge ; and truth has been sacrificed 
to superstition. 

Mr. Flood's Fourth reply : 

This is the closing argument of the afternoon. The 
first point, I believe, to which I have to invite your atten- 
tion, is with regard to the assertion of my opponent, that 
the majority of the Nicene council, were not this body 
of Christians here, but a similar body, representing the 
same views, and this is constituted with the Trinitarian 
creed, published by the council, staring him in the face. 
He does not assume that it was this body of people, but 
one holding similar sentiments ; and that this consti- 
tuted the majority of the party at the time of this council. 
With regard to the two natures in the person of Jesus 
Christ ; he seems now rather desirous of getting free 
from the position, which I stated in his words, " neither 
of us said he believed that the human nature of Jesus 
Christ existed in heaven, prior to his manifestation in 
this world ; " this is an acknowledgment that there was 
another nature, which was not human, and that that 
which was not human, had existed prior to its manifes- 
tation on this earth ; and I know this position to be oc- 
cupied by those entertaining similar views to my brother. 
There is one point to which I would direct your attention ; 
if there be a difficulty involved in the fact that there is 
one God, and that that one may be composed of three 
persons ; is there not an equal difficulty involved in the 
fact that there may be two natures in Christ, and that 
one may be composed of two different persons ? for he 
insists that it is a mere quibble in me, to say that the 
human nature of Jesus Christ does not constitute a sepa- 
rate person ; I assume, on the contrary, that he took upon 



60 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

him a nature, and identified with his person, making a 
union with his person, and that nature which he took upon 
him was human, making with him, two separate and dis- 
tinct natures, a manhood, and Godhead; this is the position 
which I occupy, and the position which I have stated 
from the first ; and if difficulty be involved in the fact, 
that the Godhead is possessed of three persons, equal in 
substance, power, and eternity, is there not an equal dif- 
ficulty involved in the fact, that Christ had an existence 
prior to his manifestation in the flesh, and that his human 
nature was not manifested prior to his appearance, and 
that in Christ existed two persons, a divine person, and 
a human person? I assume, that Christ has authorized 
us to treat the subject in this light ; he intimated the 
existence of a manhood and a Godhead, in his nature, 
in his language to the Jews, in John, viii, where he 
says, " before Abraham was, I am." Calmefs explana- 
tion of this passage is, " I existed before the time of any 
merely human creature; you Jews perceive the man 
Christ Jesus, which has appeared to you, which ye think 
ye know ; but beside this outward person, there is a 
divine nature, which subsisted in my person ; before 
Abraham was, I am." Abraham saw him, treated him 
as a Saviour, and predicted his coming into the world. 
I give the preface of the learned Calmet, rendered by 
Clarke, but from memory, however: he inquires, 
" Whether there might not 'be two natures in a stick 
of wood?" By submitting it to chemical analysis, it is 
possible, this might be ascertained to be the fact ; and he 
thus designs to pass off these very serious difficulties of 
the human and divine nature, with this supposition. 
The word Trinity, I admit, does not occur in the Scrip- 
tures; and I have no knowledge of the term ' Divine Son 
of God, ? occurring in the Bible ; if it occur, it is an 
exceptional term. I meet with the term, Son of God ; 
the disciples referred to him that spoke to the waves, as 
a divine being — not only as a divine being, but as God 
in the highest possible sense ; and, hence, I insist, that 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 61 

in view of those passages, that while in his human nature 
he claims equality with the Father, and was entitled to 
it ; then, of course, there is a propriety in using such 
terms as we do, in regard to the Trinity. My opponent 
refers to some forty arguments, which, he believes, make 
it impossible, that Jesus Christ could have been God; 
and he does hope that the brother will follow him. Now, 
if I have not been laboring to follow him, I know not 
what I have done ; I have regularly taken his arguments 
in the order in which they were submitted, and attempted 
to answer them. God, he says, has no body; but the 
Son has a body. He set out, this morning, with the as- 
sertion, that God had a body, and had become visible to 
Moses ; and now he assumes that God has no body, but 
Christ has a body; here Christ is not God. Well' now, 
if this prove anything, it proves too much ; he is not 
God, for his God has no body. Now, I assume, that God, 
as God, existed without a visible body, and that he might 
have so existed to all eternity ; but God did descend to 
take a visible body, in connection with Jesus Christ, as a 
temple. Thus in this temple of humanity was embodied 
the Godhead, for the express purpose, as we showed, for 
the redemption and salvation of our race. 

He said, God does not pray, but the Son does ; there- 
fore, he cannot be God. Now it is strange, that in the 
face of our position, so clearly defined, he could so impose 
upon his own mind, as to pass this off as an argument. 
We have nowhere asserted that the human nature of 
Jesus Christ is God. No Trinitarian ever assumed that 
the human nature of Jesus Christ is God, but that the 
Word, Logos, which was in the beginning with the 
Father, was God, and is God ; and the distinction must 
be maintained. We hold, then, that the human nature, 
in its inferiority, in its subjection to the Father, is depen- 
dant upon the Father ; it was a medium through which 
blessings, and glory, could be conferred on our fallen 
race ; it was the medium of communication between both 
God and man; Christ in his human nature associated 



62 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

with the divine nature, holding communication with the di- 
vine nature ; and for this express purpose and design, a 
union was constituted between God and human nature — 
took upon himself not the nature of angels, but the seed of 
Abraham, and was found in fashion as a man — became 
obedient to death, even the death of the cross. He quotes 
1 Cor. xv, 22, where "Christ is subject to the Father," then 
shows that the Son submitted to the Father, that God may- 
be all in all . Here is a closing up of the mediatorial reign of 
Jesus Christ ; judgment is set, and the condition of huma- 
nity is sealed for ever ; he that has been the mediator, row 
becomes the judge. The Son has been subject to the 
Father ; but now humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ, 
holds communion with the Father. During man's pro- 
bation, mercy triumphs ; justice is stayed ; vengeance is 
withheld ; the day of mercy is extended to the rebel ; to 
the hell-deserving, Christ is our surety in presence of the 
Father, for he ever liveth to make intercession for us. 
This is the point then. Then shall he cease to appear in 
his vesture dipped in blood. Now he ceases to exercise 
his office of mediator ; he becomes judge of quick and 
dead. The resurrection of Christ was the triumph over 
his enemies ; the accomplishment of his glorious designs, 
and execution of the judgment of heaven upon those 
who continue unbelievers. Now hear the command of 
Revelation : unto the Son he says, u thy throne, O God, 
is forever and ever." Mark it. I will just turn to Dr. 
Barnes,}). 58, "A throne is the seat on which a monarch 
sits, and is here the symbol of dominion ; because kings, 
when acting as rulers, sit on thrones. Thus a throne be- 
comes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it 
means, that his rule or dominion would be perpetual, or 
'for ever and ever ; ' which assuredly could not be ap- 
plied to Solomon. The phrase, ' O God,' could not be 
applied to Solomon ; but applied to the Messiah, it proves 
what the apostle is aiming to prove in that he is above 
the angels." 

Thus a throne becomes the emblem of authority or 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 63 

empire ; and the position first occupied, that his reign 
would be everlasting. 

My brother intimates that there is Very little original- 
ity about me. Well, I suppose the condemnation is a just 
one ; I am not disposed to call my good brother's judg- 
ment in question — and if he manifests a little more origi- 
nality, and ventures out a little further on his own 
authority, I will do my best to follow him. God has no 
equal. Philippians ii, 5, "Let this mind be in you." 
" Thought it not robber} 7 ," &c. Now, the brother desired 
that Christ and his brethren might not disagree. Well, 
let that expression pass for what it is worth — I will leave 
him, and Paul, to settle the difficulty ; " Christ thought it 
not robbery;" but he says that God has no equal, can 
have none ; now it does seem to me that a very serious 
difficulty has arisen between Paul and my brother Sum- 
merbell, and I leave him to settle the difficulty with Paul, 
at his leisure. John v, 17, u My Father worketh hitherto, 
ancj I work ;" he was equal with the Father, and on this 
account the Jews undertook to stone him, — they rejected 
him on this account. John x, 30, "I and my Father are 
one." This was the position assumed by Jesus. They 
had assumed the equality of Jesus with the Father from 
this very position ; but the brother labors to explain it 
away. In the passage quoted from John, I have shown 
that the Jews understood, that when he assumed to be 
the Son of God, he made himself equal with God, and on 
this account they were disposed to stone him ; thus it was 
no relief to them, when he said, "I am the Son of God." 
John x, 37, "If I do not the works of my Father believe 
me not; and if I do, though ye believe not me, believe 
the works, that ye may know, and believe, that the 
Father is in me, and I in him." Now here are two motives 
so fully expressed, that there can be no equivocation 
respecting it. With these remarks on the unity of the 
essential equality of Christ with God, let us now advert 
to the charge, that we have not followed our opponent, 
with the exception of a single point, of running ove? 



64 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

each of his forty-four arguments ; we believe that they 
have answered all that has been advanced; his forty- 
four arguments remind me of a poem that was written, 
containing forty-four verses ; but it so happened that 
every stanza had precisely the same words ; and so with 
my brother's arguments ; — when one was answered, the 
whole was answered ; here I deem it unnecessary to spend 
time in answering, singly, the long catalogue that has 
been presented. Notice the assumption of Christ to 
Philip, John xiv, 9, "Have I been so long time with 
thee, and hast thou not known me, Philip ?" Hebrews i, 
3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the ex- 
press image of his person, who upholdeth all things by 
the word of his power." Here, Christ is declared to be 
the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express 
image of his person ; in this way he is made manifest to 
the world, as the Father revealed, and the only revela- 
tion of the Father that has ever been made to the w T orld. 
The remarks of Mr. Barnes are very appropriate : 

Barnes, p. 26. "The sun itself we do not see; the 
beams that flow from it w T e do see. The meaning here 
is, that if God be represented under a luminous body, as 
he is in the Scriptures, (see Ps. Ixxiv, 11; Mai. iv, 2,) then 
Christ is the radiance of that light — the brightness of that 
luminary." 

Here God is represented under the image of a lumin- 
ous body ; Malachi iv, 2 ; "And unto you that fear my 
name, shall the Sun of Kighteousness arise w 7 ith healing 
in his wings." This language also accords with John 
xiv, 9, in the person of Jesus Christ, in the way that 
would not have been possible, had he not been one with 
the Father. Matthew xi, 27, "All things are delivered 
unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but 
the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save 
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 
Now whatever is revealed to us of God the Father, is 
revealed to us through the Son ; through him the rays, 
so to speak, of divine nature, are manifested to the world ; 



DISCUSSION OK THE TRINITY. 65 

now the claim set up by you, my brother, that Christ 
and the Father can not dwell in one person, seems to be 
entirely invented; the language of Christ, and the 
language of the Apostle, will admit of no other fair con- 
struction ; the equality of Christ with the Father is also 
to be inferred from these appellations that are given to 
Christ; 1st John v, 20, "And we know that the Son of 
God has come, and hath given us an understanding, that 
we may know him that is true, and we are in him that 
is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ; this is the true 
Gocl, and eternal life." What could be more pointed than 
this ? Jude i, 23, " To the only wise God, our Saviour, 
be glory, and majesty, dominion, and power, both now, 
and forever." If that does not declare the essential 
equality of Christ, with the Father, in substance, in 
power, in glory, and in eternity, I know not what lan- 
guage could. Revelation xvii, 14, "These shall make 
war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, 
for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings." Revelation 
xix, 13, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in 
blood, and his name is called the Word of God." Rev. 
xix, 18, "And he hath on his vesture, and on his thigh 
a name written: King of kings, and Lord of lords." Rev. 
xxii, 13, "I am Alpha, and Omega, the beginning, and 
the end ; the first, and the last." Of what being could 
this be asserted, I am the first, and I am the last, but of 
God ? Can such language be applicable to any other ? by 
what created or descended being, could it be assumed that 
he was the first, and the last ? this agrees with the lan- 
guage of the apostle, where he says, "Thou art the same, 
and thy years shall not fail ; but those who pres§ on to 
destruction, and will not be under his direction, and 
authority," he says, " as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
up, and they shall be changed ;" but change is not to be 
inferred, with regard to Christ; he is unchangeable, 
immutable; he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for 
ever. Barnes, p. 43. "The apostle says, Thou art the 
same. Thou wilt not change and thy years shall not 
6 



66 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

faiL Thou wilt exist for ever unchanged. What could 
more clearly prove that he, of whom this is spoken, is 
immutable ? Yet it is undoubtedly spoken of the Messiah, 
and must demonstrate that he is divine. 

Mr. Summerbell's Fifth address : 

Kind friends — We are happy to address you again this 
morning, and happy that we have such a pleasant feeling 
manifested in this discussion. I think that my brother 
loves me a little better than when w r e first met here ; and I 
am sure that I love him more. If the love increases, it 
will be a happy discussion indeed. 

My brother quotes the text, " I have power to lay down 
my life," etc., to show that Christ had great power, and 
hence, must be God. But Jesus says, " this command- 
ment have I received of my Father." I want my brother 
to remember this point, viz : Jesus received all power of 
the Father. My brother now states plainly, that he has 
but a human sacrifice. The Christians have been 
preached against, by Trinitarians, for years, erroneously 
charged with having only a human Saviour — a human 
sacrifice. But now, my brother has renouced all idea of 
a divine Mediator. He denies the eternal Son ; that is, 
positively denies that the Son is God, or divine ; and 
consequently, by his own showing, he ought not to 
worship him. But the angels of God worship him, and 
worship him as the only begotten Son. Heb. i, 8. I 
want my brother to clear up this passage. He now has 
but a man mediator ; all the person he has between God 
and man, is simply a man. A man to make an infinite 
atonement ; a man for a sacrifice ; a man to trust for 
salvation ; and yet, the Scriptures say, " cursed is he that 
trusteth in man, or maketh flesh his arm ! " Perhaps my 
brother will not trust in this man, with "delegated 
power,*' as he expresses it. I do not know, but it is all 
the security he has. What will he do ? Our Trinitarian 
friends have always contended that Christ must be omni- 
scient, to be able to judge the world; but as a man, he 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 67 

could not have been omniscient; and the Son is only 
man, Clarke says, and my brother agrees with Clarke; 
consequently, the second person in the Trinity is only a 
man, and they baptize in the name of the Father, of the 
Holy Ghost, and of a man. He divides Jesus into God 
and man ; but still it is the man that died for him, 
suffered for him, and was crucified for him. A man is 
his mediator ; it is a man that pleads in heaven for him. 
It is a man, according to my brother, to whom God says, 
Heb. i, 8, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." 
And now, I want to know whether, my brother will 
worship this man, that does so much for him ; bleeds for 
him, suffers for him, mediates for him ; or whether he 
only worships a part of his Jesus ; and if so, what part 
he can worship and not be idolatrous ? How far can he 
go ? How can he tell just where he must stop ? Where 
do we cross the line in worshiping Jesus, and become 
idolaters ? Let my brother define ; for it is a dreadful 
thing to be an idolater. 

He says that the man Jesus does all this for him 
simply as man. Perhaps he will ask me if I do not 
believe him to be man. I answer, yes, but not "very 
man," as per creed. But the second man is the Lord 
from heaven, 1 Cor. xv, 47 — no " mere man " — no " very 
man ;" it is no simple humanity with me, but the Lord 
from heaven. You can not help noticing my brother's 
manner in making quotations. If he goes to Mosheim, 
he is in danger of destroying all his argument by reading 
a line too much. You all noticed how he came near 
losing all his argument, by a line too much from Barnes ; 
and refuted all that he said, with reference to John x, 
34, by quoting the whole verse, through mistake. He 
quotes " I have power to lay down my life," and stops 
short, for if he finished the sentence, it is, " this com- 
mandment I received of my Father ; " so my brother is 
obliged to cut it off, to save his argument. Should we not 
abandon a system which we would thus destroy by 
quoting a text too much, or even a whole text ? 



68 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

I will now go on reviewing his texts of Scripture, and 
it will be better for him also to follow me, instead of 
going off on affirmative propositions, as he is constantly 
doing. He quotes 1 John v, 20, " And we know that 
the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under- 
standing that we may know him that is true, and we are 
in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ. This 
is the true God, and eternal life." Now, John says that 
Jesus has given us this understanding that we may know 
him that is true ; so as Jesus is a good commentator, 
we will go to him. Where, then, does he give us this 
understanding? See John xvii, 1-3, where Jesus says, 
" Father, this is life eternal, that they might know thee the 
only true God." Jesus then says that the Father is this 
only true God ; but my brother contradicts him, by saying 
that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true 
God as the Father. Now were I, on coming into this 
place, to inquire for a blacksmith, and one were to ir^form 
me that Richard Roe was the only blacksmith in the 
place, and another were to tell me that two other persons 
were just as truly blacksmiths as he, surely the latter 
would contradict the former. And precisely so does my 
brother's theory contradict the Saviour on this text. 

1. My brother quotes Rev. xix, 16. " And he hath on 
his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of 
Lords," and says that he is called the word of God. But 
God is not called " the word of God" My brother 
quotes texts on my side of the question, and I am willing 
to let him have all that he can gain from them. Jesus 
Christ is the word of God, the Lord of lords, and the 
King of kings. 

2. My brother next quotes, I am Alpha and Omega. 
Who is Alpha and Omega ? (See Rev. xx, 9-13.) Wes- 
ley says that Jesus Christ being Alpha and Omega, 
signifies that he is the beginning and end of the Gospel 
dispensation, or as the Apostle says, "the author and the 
finisher of our faith." Not the first and last being that 
will exist. All your creeds say that Christ is the Son of 



DISCUSSION OK THE TRINITY. 69 

the Father ; and Clarke says that if he is the Son of God, 
the Father must have been prior, and of necessity 
superior to him. Luke i, 35* Now if the Son was the 
first, then he existed before the Father, and if he is to be 
the last being that exists, then must not only all angels 
and men be annihilated, but also the Father and the 
Holy Ghost. God himself must cease to exist. These 
texts have nothing to do with the subject, and my brother 
does not understand them. 

3. He says that Christ is unchangeable. But his God 
cannot be unchangeable, if, as he says, a God had existed 
from all eternity without a body, but that he finally took 
a body ; " for this implies a very great change. 

4. My brother has now admitted that God has a body. 
But his creed, or constitution and Discipline, says that 
God has not a body. Here he abandons his creed and 
gives God a body. This makes great havoc of the creed, 
which he promised to defend ! 

5. He next quotes John xiv, 9. " He that hath seen 
me hath seen the Father. 5 ' But, I ask, what did Philip 
see ? The invisible spirit or the outward body ? Did he 
not simply see the " man " — very man — as my brother 
calls it? No man hath seen God, at any time, or 
can see him. What did Philip see, according to my 
brother's theory, but the human nature ? Those visible 
eyes, cheeks, lips, face ; were they God's ? Did Philip 
literally see the Father ? Did he even see the inward, 
invisible spirit ? Or did he only see this as manifested 
in the flesh ? My brother felt this difficulty, and went 
to Barnes for help. But here again, help failed him, 
for Barnes agrees with us. He says, "hath seen the 
Father " cannot refer to the essence of God, but to the 
manifestation of him." The Son of God is the manifesta- 
tion of God in the flesh, the brightness of his glory 
and the express image of his person. Heb. i, 3. As at 
the decline of day,- when the sun is sinking behind the 
western hills, while standing upon the eastern shore, of 
the glassy lake, you see, deep down in its crystal waters, 



70 DISCUSSION ON THE trinity. 

the image of the sun — yet not another sun, but the 
brightness of its glory and the express image of its 
appearance — so do we see God in Jesus Christ. And 
thus the fathers were wont to speak of him — and thus we 
also regard him. 

6. My forty-four arguments, my brother answers barely 
by relating an anecdote of a man who wrote forty-four 
stanzas, all just alike, so that to read one was to read all. 
But I leave it to this intelligent audience, whether my 
forty -four arguments were not forty-four distinct proposi- 
tions. And now, I demand of my brother to either 
answ T er them, or to confess his inability to do so. 

7. On the prayer of Jesus, John 17th chapter, my 
brother says, that it was the humanity of Jesus praying 
to the divinity. Does he find this in the Mormon Bible ? 
I am sure that it is not in ours. Surely, if he can get 
along so well without a Bible, it was all folly to give him 
a Bible. What need has he of a Bible, when he can 
find so much of his religion outside of it ? But let us 
now have a sample of his interpretation of Scripture. 
It was the humanity, he says, praying to the divinity, 
that is, to God ; but God and Christ are but one person, 
he says, consequently, Christ's prayer was to his own 
person, and equivalent to saying " O myself, glorify 
myself with myself, with the glory that I myself had 
with myself before the world was." John chap. xvii. 
Did Jesus pray to himself? Did humanity have glory 
with God before the world was % Verse 22d, " The 
glory which thou gavest me." Did God give his glory 
to the humanity — to a creature ? 

Indeed my brother says, that I at first said that I believed 
that God had a body, and that I now say, that he has no 
body. No ! I quoted Exodus, xxxiii, 23, to show that 
the creed contradicted God. The creed says, God has 
no parts : but God said to Moses, " Thou shalt see my 
back parts." It is God, and not me, that my brother's 
difficulty is with. The question, in this discussion, is not 
on what I believe, but what my brother believes. Is 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 71 

his creed right ? He quotes John x 34, to prove that 
Christ is equal with God. Here the infidel Jews said 
that Christ made himself equal with God, but Jesus 
denied it, showing that those to whom the word of God 
came, were called gods ; while he only said that he was 
the Son of God. But he says, that Paul says, that Christ 
is equal with God ; and wants me to settle it with Paul. 
No; Paul did not say so, but the uninspired translators ; 
as I proved by Dr. Macknight ; authority which he dare 
not deny, and of whom I ever wish to speak with pro- 
found respect ; isa signifies likeness; not ison, equality. 
Phil, ii, 6. Therefore, my brother must settle it on his 
own side of the house. I wish you to remember that I 
do not give my own exposition of texts, but the very 
highest authority on the orthodox side ! Heb. i, 8, he 
says that the Son is not eternal. What then means the 
expression, "Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God ! " 
Let my brother settle this. I never degrade my Saviour 
by calling him simple humanity — very man — human 
nature ! He does, and he should account for this. How 
is it that a man is called God ? 

Acts xvii, he quotes that God will judge the world by 
that man, to prove that Christ is u very man" But 
Paul, who uses this language, says, not that this was 
very man ; but the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv, 34. 
I saw, when he was giving this, that he did not like it 
himself. He was very slow in his delivery, and you 
could hardly catch what it was that he meant. He 
changes his ground, but can not remove the difficulty 
out of his way. The Bible has the difficulties, which they 
must explain away, and so they fly from the Bible to 
man, to explain them* Now, I believe that God has 
given us a Bible which is not so full of difficulties, if we 
will only believe it, as God has given it. But if we have 
to twist the Bible to suit our creed, we might as well 
have none, and depend upon the creed altogether. Rev. 
Mr. Hunt, a New-School Presbyterian, was asked the 
difference between the New-School and the Old-School. 



72 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

He replied, " The New-School explains the creed accord- 
ing to the Bible ; but the Old-School explains the Bible 
according to the creed." I frankly confess that I admire 
the New-School method most. But my brother don't 
like delegated power. Macknight says, on Rom. ix, 5, 
" It need not surprise us that Christ in the flesh is called 
God over all, etc., since God hath highly exalted him 
in the human nature, and given him a name above every 
name. Phil, ii, 9. And hath put all things under his 
feet. 1 Cor. xv, 27. And will judge the world in right- 
eousness by that man, etc. Acts xvii, 31. This looks 
like delegated power !" He says that he can not trust 
Christ, if he has delegated power ; what will he do ? I 
think that my brother will be satisfied with this, but if he 
desires more, he can have it. Again, he accuses me of 
saying that God has a body. He misunderstands me. I 
only contrasted his saying, in one place, God has a body, 
and in another, God has not a body. 

He does not recollect the term, Divine Son of God in 
the Bible. No ! it is not of our coining, nor is it in our 
creed. They propose it, and we do not deny it. He 
quotes, " Before Abraham was I am." But as the Chris- 
tians all believe that Christ existed before Abraham, this 
does not touch our difference. 

But he says that he thinks that he has some comfort, 
(and I was pleased to hear him say so,) in a supposed 
difficulty in my union of two natures in Christ, and 
wishes to make it answer as an offset for the contradiction 
of there being three divine persons in God. But my 
brother is mistaken. I know of no such union as that 
he calls the two natures of Christ. I know of no human 
soul in Christ ; he was made of the seed of David, ac- 
cording to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God, 
according to the Spirit, &c. Bom. i, 3. The first Chris- 
tians believed that the pre-existent Spirit, the Son of God, 
was in Christ's body as the soul of that body — a divine, 
and not a human soul. 

He asks, " Why did the majority of the Council of 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 



73 



Nice draw up a Trinitarian creed ?" They did not, as 
all the world knows. There is no Trinitarianism in the 
Nicene creed. Those upon whom my brother relies as 
Trinitarian fathers, had not yet decided whether the 
Spirit was an angel, the only begotten of the Father 
through the Son, or simply the Spirit of God. See 
Neander, i, 609. 

I will now present you a brief view of the difference 
between us and the Trinitarians, by which you will see 
that the difference between them and us, is the difference 
between them and the Bible. Oast aw r ay their sectarian 
creed phraseology — renounce the unscriptural words — 
and we are one. God grant that Christians of all denom- 
inations may soon be one, even as the Father and the 
Son are one. John xvii, 22. 

Miscalled Orthodox Doctrines compared with Chris- 
tian Doctrine and the Bible. 



THEY HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 

1. DISCIPLINE. 

2. Trinity. 

3. Triune. 

4. God is Three. 

5. God is three Lords. 

6. His name three. 

7. Holy Three. 

8. God the Son. 

9. God the Spirit 

10. The God man. 

11. God died for us. 

12. Christ is the eternal 

God. 

13. Worship the Trinity. 

14. God is reconciled to 

men. 

15. God received the Atone- 

ment. 

16. The true worshipers 

shall worship the 
Trinity. 

IT. When ye pray say, 
"Holy Trinity-Epis- 
copal Pr. Book. 

18- To us there is but one 
God, the Son. 



WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 

BIBLE. 

God. 

One. 

God is one. 

God is one Lord. 

His name is one. 

Holy one. 

The Son of God. 

The Spirit of God. 

God is not a man. 

This was the Son of God. 

Christ is God's. 

Worship God. 

"We are reconciled to God. 



BIBLE DECIDES. 

Matt, xv, 9. 
Gen. i, 1. 

Gal. iii, 20. 
Deut, vi, 4. 
Zech. xiv, 9. 
Isaiah xii, 6. 
John xx, 31. 
Gen. i, 2. 
Num. xxiii, 19. 
Matt, xxvii, 54. 
1 Cor. iii, 21. 

Rev. xxii, 9. 
Rom. v, 10. 



"We received the atonement. Rom. v, 11. 

The true worshipers shall John iv, 23. 
worship the Father. 

When ye pray say, Our Luke xi, 2- 
Father, which art in hea- 
ven. 

To us there is but one God, 1 Cor. viii, 6. 
the Father of whom are 
all things. 



74 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 



THEY HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 

19. The Son and Holy 

Ghost are as much 
the true God as the 
Father. 

20. We have no God but 

Jesus. 

21. Christ is equal with God. 

22. Christ has all power in- 

dependent. 

23. He performed all his 

works by his own 
power. 

24. His works prove him 

God. 

25. He worked all his mir- 

acles in his own name. 

26. God died. 

27. There is but one in 

heaven. 

28. Christ is very man. 



WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 

Father — that they might 
know THEE, the only 
true God. 

I ascend to my God and to 

your God. 
My Father is greater than I. 
All power is given unto me. 



BIBLE DECIDES, 

John xvii, 1, 3. 



John xx, 17. 

John xiv, 28. 
Matt, xxviii, 18. 



I can of mine own self do John v, 30. 

nothing. 



He that believeth on me 
greater works than these 
shall he do. 

The works that I do, I do 
in my Father's name. 

My God, why hast thou for- 
saken me. 

Christ sitteth on the right 
hand of God. 

The Gospel preached by 
me is not after man. 



John xiv, 12. 

John x, 25. 
Matt, xxvii, 46. 
Col. Hi, 1. 
Gal. i, 1, 11, 12. 



We submit this to my brother, but in much love, as 
an excuse, if I may so speak, for cleaving to God's Holy 
Word ; that when he sees how widely discipline religion 
differs from the Bible, he may not, hereafter, blame us for 
cleaving to the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, and 
not trusting to the commandments of men. Should we 
leave our Scripture doctrine for such doctrines ? ! ! 

Mr. Flood's Fifth reply : 

I think it proper to make an allusion to the fragment 
quoted yesterday and this morning from Dr. Watts, so 
as to relieve my brother from the necessity of quoting it 
again ; the line reads, " God, the mighty Maker, died." 
Poets take great liberties at times — great latitude of ex- 
pression ; it is not, however, in our doctrine or consti- 
tution. No Methodist divine ever believed that God died ; 
no Methodist minister ever taught such a sentiment. I 
want to relieve my brother of this labor — for it is giving 
him a great deal of concern — lest he should quote it a 
dozen and one times, that it was but the mere privilege 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 75 

of a poet ; it is a thing not believed by any body that God 
died ; it is not the doctrine of Methodists, or Pres- 
byterians, nor is it received in any creed under the 
heavens. He then refers to my quotation, " I have power 
to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." 
He, doubtless, conceives that he has, at least to his own 
satisfaction, fully refuted the argument of the Omnipo- 
tence of Jesus Christ, " This commandment have I re- 
ceived of my Father." Now, I have not learned that 
commandment is, in itself, power ; if it is, then, perhaps, 
my brother has furnished a sufficient reason. I have 
power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it 
again. It does not assume that he has the power delegated 
to him, it simply says, this commandment have I received 
of my Father. Now, I design to show that the Son is 
not independent of the Father, nor the Father of the Son, 
but they act as one, for they are one. He says that 
he understands that they have denied Clarke, since he 
has gotten them into this difficulty. Well, what ima- 
ginary difficulty Clarke has fallen into, I am not pre- 
pared to say. I have not discovered, however, that 
Clarke had been found in any difficulty during this dis- 
cussion ; there are those here, I understand, who delight 
in blowing horns. In advance of this discussion, it was 
announced that your humble servant would be used up 
before the close of the first day, and might as well go 
home ; their next design is to put their old friend to rout, 
having understood that he has abandoned his position. 
Some of my opponent's friends have spoken of him as a 
second Luther — able to vanquish not only his opponent, 
but Dr. Clarke himself. The field, they say, is fully 
possessed by the enemy, and the standard-bearer waves 
his banner under the name and title of Luther the 
Second. Mr. S. says, Dr. Clarke differed from Watson, 
and others, on the essential deity and sonship of Jesus 
Christ, as well as relative to the period when Christ be- 
came properly known as a Son. This difficulty, we 
tranquilly acknowledge, has at all times existed. Clarke 



76 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 

was never officially received by the British Conference 
as a Methodist commentator — he never received their 
official sanction ; but in Europe and America he has been 
universally respected for his greatness of mind, his ex- 
tensive enlightenment, and his most unequaled literary 
attainments ; and for the happy influence which his com- 
mentary has had in leading to a correct understanding 
of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ; and 
Clarke, he says, abandons our position ! Tell it not in 
Gath ! No author in the Methodist community, though 
not officially indorsed, taken as a whole, commands 
more universal respect among Methodist divines as a 
commentator, and especially as a book of reference, than 
does Dr. Clarke. Next, says my opponent, with regard 
to Jesus Christ, that he is a man — that he is the Lord 
from heaven — not very man. Man, but not very man. 
That qualifying phrase seems to be quite offensive to my 
brother. If I sought to strengthen, by a single word, 
the qualifying phrase, the affirmation that my respected 
and worthy brother was a man of principle and integrity, 
1 might say he is a man, a very man. Should I be out 
of place in expressing my conviction in his manhood, by 
the use of such a phrase ? I leave him to settle the dif- 
ficulty which seems to have arisen. He says, he allows 
me to be in the affirmative. Everything I have deemed 
essential to the argument, I have invariably answered, or 
shall answer, in the course of this debate ; but in view 
of the fact that my brother has his portfolio here, full of 
manuscripts, which he has been writing, perhaps, for a 
year, or which he has copied — and I might style my 
brother so far a copyist. I supposed I had come here to 
meet the reverend Mr. Summerbell on the merits of this 
important question, but I find he is occupying the greater 
portion of our time in reading matters that are irrelevant 
to this controversy ; and if I do not see proper to follow 
him in his quotations from the musty volumes he has 
chosen to cite from, it will not be because his arguments 
are unanswerable, but because I deem them irrelevant. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 77 

My brother goes on to say, they have three Gods and 
not one. My brother will simply allow me to deny it. 
Trinitarians have, in no asre of the world, assumed that 
they had three Gods. The doctrine of the unity of the 
Godhead, is a doctrine universally advocated and sup- 
ported by consistent Trinitarians. 

He next alludes to the text, " I am the first, and I am 
the last," and then he supposes that if this applies to 
the person of Jesus Christ, it must annihilate the divine, 
and depopulate the whole earih ; and that the world must 
sink into nonenity, and Christ must remain the last and 
only being, if the passage applies to him. 

I understood this to be the construction he gave to it. 
All I designed to prove, was the essential eternity of 
Jesus Christ, " I am the beginning and the end — the first 
and the last." I only used this passage to show that 
Jesus Christ possessed eternity, being the beginning and 
end, the first and the last — that he existed before any mere 
creature ; in other words, I am the Creator. In saying 
I am the last, it does not follow that others may not be 
the last with him ; for though it be true of angels and of 
men, there was a time when they did not exist ; and 
hence infinity can not be applied to angels or men. That 
which relates to an existence, which is finite, is that 
which will come to an end ; that which is infinite, is that 
which will endure for ever. Absolute infinity, therefore, 
can not be applied to angels and men, because there was 
a time when they did not exist ; they live on, and live 
for ever. When earth shall stagger under the weight of 
accumulated ages, and the sun runs his course, and ceases 
to emit his rays, and becomes utter darkness, and the 
moon no more takes her silvery walk through the heavens, 
and the last twinkling star shall be plucked from its 
socket, by the hand that formed it, still angels and men 
live on, and live for ever. 

With reference to the term unchangeable, I used it with 
regard to the essential existence of the Deity. He is an 
unchangeable God, the same yesterday, to-day, and for 



78 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

ever ; and if he sees proper to communicate his perfec- 
tions by taking upon himself human nature, by which 
he might; develop those perfections, it is no change in 
the Deity — it is only resuming the relation which ren- 
ders him tangible to his creatures, in their fallen condi- 
tion; hence our God, in the person of Jesus Christ, 
Word or Logos, having taken upon him human nature, 
remains the same unchanged and unchangeable God, yes- 
terday, to-day, and for ever. He refers again to Hebrews 
i, 8, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." My 
brother says that I asserted that the Son is not God. 
When did his brother say so ? I would like to know. 
How often shall I inform my brother that the divine na- 
ture and human nature are inseparably united in one 
person, not in two separate and distinct persons ; that the 
Word, or Logos, united the humanity with the divinity, 
in one person, in Jesus Christ? How often shall I 
repeat this interesting and soul-cheering truth, that Jesus 
Christ is God and man, united together in one person, in 
accordance with the article which we are defending here, 
never to be separated permanently. The brother thinks 
that he can illustrate this by an anecdote about the Old 
and New School Presbyterians — the one interpreting the 
creed to suit the Bible ; and the other interpreting the 
Bible to suit the creed. It is not paying much of a com- 
pliment to the Old School Presbyterians. He says he 
would rather favor the course of the New School brethren, 
in interpreting their creed to suit the Bible. 

Now I might feel the same toward you ; w T hether the 
creed lives in his head, or in a book, if it could be made 
to suit the Bible, it would be a great gratification to my 
mind. That is my object, to lead him to see and inter- 
pret his views, that they will harmonize with the teach- 
ings of the Bible, which declare that Jesus Christ is God, 
and that Jesus Christ is man; and, again, that God- 
head and manhood are united together in the person of 
Christ. Now, if this Bible truth could be written in his 
creed, either in head, heart, or book, it would be a great 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 79 

consolation to our auditors. He alludes to the petition 
where the manhood addresses the divinity ; the Son prays 
to the divinity, saying, " Oh! my Divinity, glorify thou 
me," &c. Now, have I not repeatedly informed my 
brother, that the Word, or Logos, which is the Second 
person, is identified in the person with the Son Jesus 
Christ, the Word, or Logos, in connection with humanity, 
which constitutes the Son of God, being united in one per- 
son, in this petition, would be addressing the great Source 
from whom emanates the redeeming grace ; he is the great 
prevailing cause of our redemption. Having accomplished 
this, his work, he now prays, " Glorify thou me with 
thine own self — with the glory that I had with thee before 
the world was ; when I existed with thee as the Word, 
or Logos ; when I was surrounded with the rapturous 
song of heavenly voices ; when I was not associated, as 
I am now, with this world of woe and misery ; when I 
was known in the prospective light of prophecy — as the 
man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; I have drank 
the cup of grief to its very dregs ; I have not refused to 
do anything which thou hast sent me to do ; I have com- 
pleted the work," — as though he had said, as the pro- 
curing cause of man's redemption, — "now that thou 
hast expressed thy love to the world in sending me to 
do this work, glorify thou me w T ith the glory I had with 
thee before the world was." "For God so loved the 
w r orld, (John iii, 16,) that he gave his only-begotten Son." 
Here we have an expression concerning Him from whom 
issued the plan of redemption, and the ground of it; 
it w r as the love of God the Father, for a fallen race. 
Even Christ himself, in alluding to these manifestations 
of the Father's love, does not presume to explain the 
extent or magnitude of the benevolence and love of God 
to man. As Clarke remarks, he leaves an eternity of 
meaning on the little particle, " So." " God so loved the 
world." Now, this love having been fully evinced in 
my submission to the divine law, in offering my life as 
a ransom for a perishing world. Now, "glorify thou 



80 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

me, with the glory I had with thee," &c, turning to this 
theme of exaltation, " and of boundless love, which I 
had with thee before the world was." Brother S. alludes 
to the reference I made yesterday, with respect to the 
terms, Divine Son of God. I do not make this as an 
objection to the term. I merely balanced it against his, 
with respect to the term Trinity, which my brother has 
used, in this discussion, a number of times, if my memory 
serves me right. 

With respect to the sermon preached here last night 
by a brother of our church, I remark, I had hoped my 
good brother Summerbell would have occupied this pul- 
pit to preach what he conceived to be the Gospel of 
Christ, and he would have preached without interruption. 
He conceives an attack was made upon his belief, by the 
brother who preached : he says, if anything is to be ob- 
jected to, give it in open daylight. He insinuates that 
some one is afraid of daylight ; he says, if objections are 
made let them form part of the debate. It is an unjust 
insinuation. 

Our brother, last night, might have made some allusion 
to the new doctrines held by my brother Summerbell's peo- 
ple. The brother who delivered that sermon asserts, that 
Flood did not request that he should preach on any given 
subject. Brother Flood, therefore, stands free ; whatever 
may be the insinuation of my brother, I will be as calm as 
a summer-sun — I assure you, brother, the idea of alarm 
has never taken hold of my soul — so I hope there will be 
no concern upon that subject. If I scare — I will scare so 
desperately bad that my legs will not carry me away. 
My opponent alludes to what he conceives to be our 
belief, namely, that God is three. We say God is one. 
He quotes an array of passages to prove he is one. All 
of which we believe, I maintain, as rigidly as any man 
that lives — the unity of the Godhead — of three persons in 
one. Not three Gods, nor as my opponent says, a great 
God and a little God. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 81 

Mr. Summerbell's Sixth address : 

My brother made a bad allusion to my Arguments. 
I support my arguments by the very highest authority on 
my brother's side: but my argument is original. If he 
meant that I am a copyist, I deny it. I wisl) to remain good 
friends with my brother ; but he must avoid such charges 
in the future ; if he is alarmed at the size of my port- 
folio I will leave it at home, to soothe his feelings. He 
relies upon more questionable aid, and when you suppose 
him to be quoting Scripture, he is reading the " Scrip- 
ture Manual ;" yet, would he believe even that, he would 
relieve me of much difficulty in correcting him. He now 
says that the words " When God, the mighty, Maker died," 
are only a poetic effusion. But he knows that thousands 
of people believe them. His own creed teaches the same 
doctrine: "Whereof is one Christ very God and very 
man, which truly suffered, was dead and buried." And 
my brother's own interpretation of Scripture confirms it. 
He quotes " I have power to lay down my life and I have 
power to take it again, to prove that Christ was God." 
Christ says this commandment have I received of my 
Father. He refers to my saying, that Clarke was in dif- 
ficulty; I alluded to his being abandoned last night ; I have 
nothing against Clarke, and I am sure I do not wish his 
friends to forsake him. My brother pronounced a eulogy 
on him, which is very well. I regard Clarke as a very 
learned man, and an able commentator ; and although 
they may appeal to Watson, yet Clarke is a much more 
able man than Watson, or Benson ; and the Methodists 
generally so regard him. Christ is called man, but he is 
never called "very man" in the Bible. If they mean, 
what Paul means by man, why alter his words ? If 
"very" makes no difference, why put it there? The 
Lord is called a husbandman, and a man of war, but he 
is not "very man." Gabriel is called a man, but he is 
not " very man." My brother accuses me of saying, that 
they have three Gods. If I said they professed to believe 
in three Gods, I did not mean it. I have proved that 



82 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

they hold the Son inferior to the Father : but he says, 
that Christ, being Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
last, means that he will be the last to exist, but that 
others also will be last ! I like Wesley's view, that Christ 
is the first and the last in the Gospel dispensation ; or as 
the Apostle has it still better, that " he is the author and 
finisher of our faith." I still insist that my brother tell 
us, how God could create the worlds by his Son, Heb. i, 
1-3 ; if he had no Son until eighteen hundred years ago ? 
The creed, or constitution, and Discipline says, that God 
is without body ; but my brother now says, that God took 
a body. He says, that the Word, which was with God, 
was not the person ; but that the man, very man, was 
the person begotten. Thus making Christ two persons. 
He says, the Jews rightly considered the words "Son of 
God," as equal with God ; and yet he pronounces the 
term Divine Son, exceptionable. 

He next quotes, Philip, ii, 6, " He thought it not rob- 
bery to be equal with God." If that was God, then God 
"made himself of no reputation, and became obedient to 
death, even the death of the cross." Now is not that a 
change I Does my brother believe that God died on the 
cross ? He now says, that though the two natures were 
inseparably united ; they were separated three days and 
three nights. Very well! The creed says they were 
joined never to be divided. How does my brother know 
that they may not be divided again ? My brother doubles 
and crosses his track too often. One day it is one thing ; 
and another day it is another thing. He must realize it, 
and open his eyes to the contradictory nature of his doc- 
trine. I read my brother twenty-seven distinct propo- 
sitions, showing how their doctrine positively contradicts 
the Bible. I want him to explain, and show that they do 
not — if he can. 

He says that the Bible declares that Jesus is both God 
and man ; let him produce the texts, and I will attend to 
them. 

He says, that when Christ prayed, that it was the Word 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 83 

or Logos, praying to the first great Cause. Did I not 
tell you that he did not believe in the equality of the 
Son with the Father ? And here now, he has God, the 
Logos, praying to the Father ; showing that they are not 
equal. I hold different views of God, than to suppose 
that he prays. He says that the plan of salvation origin- 
ated with the Father ; but he also says, that Jesus is the 
author of the gospel. 

My brother has a way of putting words into Jesus' 
mouth, and speaking for him ; but that is not Scripture. 
He says, that some one called me a second Luther ; this 
is the first I have heard it. He says, that he must see 
deeper waters, etc. I gave my brother twenty-seven pro- 
positions on a paper ; and he answered one, which was 
not included. These would have led him into deeper 
water had he sought it. I will now read him sixty-one 
sentences, and see if he will answer them. 

As he will not own that the three persons are three 
Gods, yet fails to define what they are, I propose now, 
to give him a number of sentences, defining what the 
three are, according to his theory. 

1. He believes in three persons, all of whom are Je- 

hovah. 

2. Three persons, all of whom are God. 

3. Three persons, all first and last. 

4. Three persons, all Alpha and Omega. 

5. Three persons, all king of Israel. 

6. Three persons to pray to. 

7. Three persons to honor equally. 

8. Three persons to worship. 

9. Three persons to love equally. 

10. Three persons to obey equally. 

11. Three persons, all supreme. 

12. Three persons, all infinite, 

13. Three persons, all self-existent. 

14. Three persons to wear the crown in heaven. 

15. Three persons to sit on the throne in heaven. 

16. Three persons to hold the scepter in heaven. 



84 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

17. Three persons, all equal in power. 

18. Three persons, all equal in glory. 

19. Three persons equal in substance. 

20. Three persons equal in eternity. 

21. Three persons, each with a man added, or differing. 

22. Three persons to be atoned. 

23. Three persons to be reconciled. 

24. Three persons to look to for pardon. 

25. Three persons whose laws are broken. 

26. Three persons sending each other. 

27. Three persons praying to each other. 

28. Three persons obeying each other. 

29. Three persons appeasing each other. 

30. Three persons smiting each other. 

31. Three persons giving the kingdom to each other. 

32. Three persons equal, but one inferior to another. 

33. Three persons equal, but one praying to another. 

34. Three persons equal, but one exalting the other. 

35. Three persons equal, but one giving life to another. 

36. Three persons equal, but one giving power to an- 

other. 

37. Three persons with a man mediator. 

38. Three persons with a human Saviour. 

39. Three persons with a human sacrifice. 

40. Three persons with a human body and soul. 

41. Three persons creating the universe. 

42. Three persons giving the law. 

43. Three persons the God of Abraham. 

44. Three persons giving their Son for the salvation of 

men. 

45. Three omnipotent persons. 

46. Three omnipresent persons, 

47. Three omniscient persons. 

48. Three persons, all the only wise God. 

49. Three persons, all the mighty God. 

50. Three persons, all the most high God. 

51. Three persons, all the eternal God. 

52. Three persons, each the everlasting Father. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 85 

53. Three persons, each the first great Cause. 

54. Three persons, all husband to the church. 

55. Three persons, all equally God. 

56. Three persons all equal; so that if the Son has a 

man added, each to be equal, must have a man 
added. 

57. So, as the Son is God, and a man more ; 

58. The Father must be God, and a man more ; 

59. And the Holy Ghost must be God, and a man more. 

60. Three persons all God, and a man more. 

And in conclusion, I will say, that if all these make 
one God and no more, then farewell to all mathematical 
rules for evermore. 

In order to make the Bible harmonize with their theory, 
they are forced to give such an interpretation to the texts 
referred to in the following list, as to make them teach 
such absurdities as that in 

John xiv, 28, Greater and less imply perfect equality. 

John xvii, 8, The sender and sent, are all one 
being. 

John iii, 16, The giver and gift are just the same 
thing. With and without body, are all the same. 

Mark xiii, 32, Omniscience knows not, when is the end 
of the world. 

John v, 19, Omnipotence can of its own self do no- 
thing. 

John xi, 15, Omnipresence was glad that it was not 
there. 

Luke vi, 12, The supreme God abode all night in 
prayer. 

Luke xxiv, 29, The invisible God was often seen and 
handled. 

John xx, 19, The self-existent God has a Father and a 
God. 

John v, 26, The author of all good receives his life 
from another. 

John viii, 50, The most high God seeks not his own 
glory. 



86 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

John vi, 38, The only wise God came not to do his 
own will. 

Gal. iii, 20, One and three are jnst the same thing. 

Matt, iii, 17, Father and Son are just the same being. 

Matt, xxvii, 46, On the cross, Jesus cried to himself. 

John xvii, 3, In the garden, he prayed to himself. 

1 John ii, 1, As our mediator he pleads with himself. 

Luke xxii, 69, In heaven he sits down at the right 
hand of himself. 

Eev. v, 7, He took the book out of the right hand of 
himself. 

Acts xvii, 31, He is appointed to judge the quick and 
dead by himself. 

Shall we believe all these contradictions ? What then 
is the use of preaching against the Roman Catholic ab- 
surdities, so long as we can believe such as these ? But 
let us look at this system again. 

If Jesus be God, and there be no other God, then what 
is true of God, is true of Jesus. Let us try this, by read- 
ing Jesus instead of God, in a few texts ; and you will 
plainly see that Jesus is not God. 

1. Jesus so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, John iii, 16. Did he ? 

2. Jesus sent forth his Son made of a woman. Did 
he? 

3. There is one Jehovah, Jesus, and one mediator be- 
tween Jesus and men, Gal. iii, 20. Is there? 

4. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of 
Jesus. Did he ? 

5. No man hath seen Jesus at any time. Have they 
not? 

6. Jesus over all blessed for ever. Is he over the Father 
and the Holy Ghost ? 

7. Jesus created all things by his Son. Did he ? 

8. He offered himself without spot to Jesus. Did he? 

9. He cried, Jesus, Jesus, why hast thou forsaken me ? 
Did he ? 

10. I ascend to my Jesus and to your Jesus. Did he ? 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 87 

11. God said, take, eat, this is my body. Did he ? 

12. I want my brother to explain these difficulties in 
his system. How is it that Jesus gave his Son for us ? 
Or if he did not ; then, how is it that he is the God 
that gave his Son, and yet he did not give his Son ? 

If Jesus be God, then what is true of God is true of 
Jesus ; unless Jesus be some other God ; which my bro- 
ther will not admit. To say that Jesas is God, is easy 
enough, but to prove it is hard, and to explain it, yet 
more difficult. 

Now if these difficulties are explained, I haye others 
which I will present. To say that Jesus is God, and yet 
that he does not do what God does, nor know what God 
knows, and is not what God is, or that God is not what 
he is, will never do. If one is begotten of another, 
that which is begotten can not be that which begat. 

So far as my brother believes the Bible, we agree ; but 
when he believes something, which is not only not in the 
Bible, but contradicts it ; there we differ. The doctrine 
of the Trinity never had its origin in the Bible. God 
never spoke the word ; Jesus never named it. The apos- 
tles never mentioned it ; but now men call God, Trinity, 
Holy Trinity. It is a great thing to name our God. We 
may name our dog, our horse, or our child ; but the 
child should not name its father ; and we should not name 
our God. The name by which men now call God, was 
introduced into the church in the latter part of the second 
century ; and the doctrine u received (says Mosheim) its 
finishing touch," two hundred years after. Theodosius, 
the tenth Christian emperor of Rome, but the first who 
was baptized in the Trinitarian faith, was a great con- 
queror, and on ascending the throne immediately set 
about overturning the primitive Christian churches, and 
establishing the Trinity. One hundred churches were 
taken from the Christians, and given to the Trinitarians. 
Gibbon says — " that the Arians might complain with 
some tolerable degree of justice, that an inconsiderable 
congregation of sectaries, in the city of Constantinople, 



88 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

should usurp the hundred churches, which they were in- 
sufficient to fill, while the far greater part of the people 
were cruelly excluded from every place of religious wor- 
ship. Theodosius was still inexorable ; but as the angels 
who had protected the Catholic cause, were only visible 
to the eyes of faith, he prudently reinforced those heav- 
enly legions with the more effectual aid of temporal and 
carnal weapons ; and the temple of St. Sophia was occu- 
pied by a large body of the imperial guards." — Gib. iii, 76. 
The Trinitarians once established, a council was held 
in Constantinople, which gave the finishing touch to the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Their own bishop compares 
the council to wasps, magpies, cranes, and geese. These 
were the men who gave us the Trinity. Oh, my breth- 
ren, abandon it as one of the relics of popery. There is 
enough in the Bible ; had there not been, God would have 
given us more. God has not left us to manufacture sys 
terns of self-righteousness. 

Mr. Flood's Sixth reply: 

I shall, as briefly as I can, respond to my brother's re- 
marks in his last speech. I must do myself the justice, 
not to follow him in all those numerous repetitions, of 
what he thinks are objections to our doctrine of the qual- 
ity of the persons in the Godhead. The brother set out, 
by complaining that I had used the term copyist. I sug- 
gested, that if his course continued to be such as it had 
been, he might be open to the charge ; then the brother 
becomes courageous : I am glad to see it. I can throw 
away my portfolio, he exclaims, and meet any man on 
this subject, with the Bible only. Well, I have not ex- 
pressed the slightest want of confidence in his ability ; 
but he complains that I make fun of him, by praising 
him, and comparing him with Luther. Now, I hope my 
brother will become better acquainted with me, and know 
that I am not a fun maker ; I merely alluded to the fact, 
that our friends had furnished me with a respectable op- 
ponent ; and that he, like Luther, would manfully defend 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 89 

his views ; I would not be understood as doing it in the 
light of fun making, and hope he will not use the term 
any more. 

I will read to you the second article of our religion. 
"The Son, who is the word of the Father, the very and 
eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's 
nature, in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that 
two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the God- 
head, and manhood, were joined together in one person, 
never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ, very God, 
and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, 
and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a 
sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual 
sins of men." 

Now this briefly explains the views of those who adopt 
the Methodist Protestant faith. He says, he has no creed 
but the Bible. I propose to define the doctrine of the 
Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist 
Protestant church ; especially with regard to the equality 
of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, and 
eternity. Now, I do hope this audience will not allow 
their attention to be diverted from the question at issue. 
The brother tells you, that this doctrine, with regard to 
the equality of the Father and the Son, is contrary to the 
teaching of the word of God ; I stand here to demonstrate 
the truth of that doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity, 
with regard to the equality of Jesus Christ with the 
Father, is in strict accordance with the teaching of the 
word of God. * 

Eevelations i, 18 : "I am he that liveth and was dead ; 
and behold, I am alive for evermore." Now we submit 
upon this text the following proposition: He alludes 
to the divine nature, as though he had said, I am the 
living one. In the second part, he alludes to the human 
nature of Jesus Christ, as he that was dead ; this alludes 
to the human nature of Jesus Christ, which was dead ; 
the divine nature could not die — he who never began 
to live could never die. The third part alludes, also, to 



90 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

the fact, that he is now alive; "I am alive forever- 
more." He who is the truth itself sets his own amen to 
it, and he requires of us that we should set our seal to it, 
by believing. Mr. S. then charges me with saying, that 
God had no Son until Christ was born. I have no recol- 
lection of saying so. The angels were the sons of God, 
they are represented as shouting for joy at the birth of 
Christ. Again, men are declared to be the sons of God ; 
but there is a peculiar sense in which Christ, the man, 
is the Son of God, which is not applicable to other 
created intelligences; he is the only begotten of the 
Father, full of grace and truth ; hence Christ is N the only 
begotten Son of God. It is thus I understand it, what- 
ever may be the views of those who believe in the eter- 
nal Sonship of Christ, that the miraculous conception 
and incarnation of the Word, or Logos, by which the 
humanity and divinity became united, never to be per- 
manently separated ; and, hence, in this allusion he is 
spoken of as the only begotten Son of God. Again, he 
says, we do not believe in the equality of the Father with 
the Son, and assumes that a higher estimate is set upon 
the character of Jesus Christ by Ms Society. Did you 
notice that distinction : " The Christian places a higher 
estimate," &c. 

There seems to be something of an insinuation that 
those of other societies are not Christians — it seems to 
indicate something of this kind. I will not be unchari- 
table, however, in presuming to know what may be the 
personal views of my brother upon this point. 

We maintain that Jesus is equal with the Father ; this 
is the very position which I am here to prove, and which 
he is here to disprove, with regard to the equality of 
Jesus with the Father, in substance, power, glory, and 
eternity. John i, 1, "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
Now, I assume that the Word, or Logos, which in the 
beginning was with God, " was God," and that Jesus is 
equal in substance, power, glory, and eternity, with the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 91 

Father, for he is God. I design to invite your attention 
to Mr. Henry's note on this passage. 

John i, 5, 1 to 3. " The other Evangelists leave us to 
collect the divine dignity of Christ from his miracles and 
doctrine, and from the various declarations and displays 
of his glory, and perfections which they record ; but John 
opens his Gospel with an express avowal and statement 
of this fundamental truth. He declares that, 'In the 
beginning was the Word. 5 Before the Word had a begin- 
ning, the Word existed. Nothing could precede time, 
but an immeasurable, incomprehensible eternity. Time 
began, when the creation was called forth into existence 
by the Word himself, and in this beginning ' the Word 
was,' that is, from all eternity. Critics have shown that 
there is an important difference between Hn the begin- 
ning,' and 'from the beginning ;' yet, the context more 
generally fixes the meaning. ' The devil was a mur- 
derer,' or manslayer ' from the beginning ;' but this he 
could not be, ere man existed. Some imagined that the 
Evangelist referred to the speculations of Plato and his 
disciples, in the term the Word, or the Logos, which 
that philosopher used ; but it is not likely that he would 
at all countenance such reveries, which seem originally 
to have been borrowed from Revelation, though they 
were at length so distorted and darkened, as to be little 
better than atheism. The Jews were constantly taught, 
in their synagogues, that ' the Word of God ' was the 
same as God, and that by the Word all things were 
made ; which, undoubtedly, was the cause why St. John 
delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as speaking 
unto them, who at the first apprehension understood him. 
Only that which they knew not was, that this Word was 
made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus 
Christ.' Bp. Pearson. The same learned divine shows, 
that this way of speaking was in use before Platonism 
was at all introduced among the Jews : and Jerome, in 
his note on Ex. i, 24, says, that the Septuagint translates 
the words rendered in our version, 'The voice of the 



92 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Almighty,' the voice of the Logos , or second person in the 
sacred Trinity. The clause, however, is at present want- 
ing in some copies of the Septuagint ; and in others, the 
words ta ^oy« do not appear to be a translation of the 
original word Shaddai, but of that rendered speech. 
'As the voice of a mighty one : when they went, there 
was the voice of speech, like the voice of an host.' The 
word may, probably, be taken in its ordinary significa- 
tion ; though we may certainly conclude, that this was 
the appearance of the Second Person in the sacred Trin- 
ity; both because he appears under the resemblance of a 
man, and what hath been said upon this subject from 
Is. vi, 1. 

" But the apostle spoke as he was moved by the Holy 
Spirit, and could refer to no higher authority than his 
own: he expressly states the doctrine in the way of a 
divine testimony, and we should endeavor to ascertain 
his meaning, according to the most simple and obvious 
interpretation of his words, and explain occasional inti- 
mations on the same mysterious subject by them, and 
not them by others. The title of c the Word' is peculiar 
to this Evangelist, at least with but few exceptions ; it 
may signify reason, and is nearly equivalent to wisdom, 
as speaking by Solomon. Probably the title is given to 
Christ, because by him the perfections, w r ill, and secret 
counsels of God are made known to man, especially, his 
hidden and deep thoughts of w T isdom, and love in our 
redemption, even as a man communicates his secret pur- 
poses and counsels to others by his word, and by him 
exclusively, for all prophets shine by his light, and 
report his testimony. It follows ' The Word w r as with 
God,' as the apostle had not mentioned Christ as the Son 
of God, so he did not say the Father, but God. The 
Word existed and was with God, when no creature was 
produced. 

" 'And the Word was God.' Christianity was doubt- 
less intended to deliver the world from idolatry, that 
principal work of the devil; it would, therefore, have 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 93 

been the most palpable absurdity, to suppose that one of 
its divinely inspired teachers should use expressions at 
the opening of his gospel, as were exactly suited to draw 
the whole Christian church into a new species of idolatry, 
and which could scarcely fail to have that effect. Yet 
this must be the consequence of supposing the person of 
whom he here spoke to have been a mere creation, how- 
ever highly exalted. For though the article is not pre- 
fixed to the original word translated God, yet that term 
is so frequently used, and even by this Evangelist, without 
the article, for God the Father, that scarcely the shadow 
of an objection can be drawn from that circumstance. 
And what can we understand by this testimony, 'the 
Word was God,' but that he was possessed of the same 
divine nature and perfections with the Father — parti- 
cipated the same glory and felicity, and was in every 
respect equally entitled to the adoration of all rational 
creatures, that should ever exist as that God, with whom he 
was, and the only objection to this inference seems to be 
that it is incomprehensible ; but it should carefully be 
noted, that they, who will not admit of it on this account, 
and for other reasons, are driven into hypothesis, the 
absurdity of which, at least, is perfectly incomprehensi- 
ble. Every succeeding generation of opponents, hitherto, 
have been induced to give up the system of their prede- 
cessors as indefensible, or at least, as less specious than 
more modern discoveries or refinements, and many from 
age to age contend each for his own scheme of getting 
over the difficulties here thrown in the way. Yet their 
utmost improvements on this subject, scarcely need any 
other answer than to compare them with this divine 
testimony, to which they must be in everlasting opposi- 
tion. The inspired writer, however, was equally careful 
to establish the personal distinction as the eternal God- 
head of the Word, and, therefore, he adds again, c The 
same was in the beginning with God.' Having thus 
stated the deity and distinct personality of the Word, he 
proceeds to ascribe all the work of creation to Him, as 



94 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

working in perfect union of will and purpose with the 
Father and the Holy Spirit. 

" In this he is so explicit as to use a repetition which, at 
first sight, may appear needless, ' all things were made 
by him ; ' but the word all is sometimes used where 
absolute universality is not meant, therefore he adds, 
that, c without him was not anything made that was 
made,' or, not so mucli as one single being ; for so the 
original words imply. In what language can a divine 
power and operation of the great Creator be more em- 
phatically described, or what could have been said, better 
suited to lead every one to look up to, and adore ; the 
Word,' as his Omnipotent Maker and Sovereign Lord. 
To suppose him to be a mere creature, is to suppose 
infinite power and perfection communicable to a creature, 
and a whole universe standing in the same relation to a 
creature, as they do to the infinite and eternal God. 
And to assert that 6 the Word ' was only an instrument 
or subordinate agent in creation, beside the absurdity of 
it, expressly contradicts the Scripture, which says that 
4 Jehovah stretcheth forth the heavens alone and spread- 
eth abroad the earth by himself, and that he will not give 
his glory to another.' Indeed, it is self-evident that ' he 
who built all things is God, in the strictest and fullest 
meaning of the word ; yet this doctrine is not grounded 
on any single expression, but on a combination of very 
many, and it will therefore appear more incontrovertible 
as we proceed.' " — Scott's note, on John i. 

Here you perceive what is the position we have been 
laboring to maintain. The essential equality of the Son 
with the Father and Word, or Logos, in substance, power, 
glory and eternity ; and how it is, that my brother can 
repeat so frequently, as he has thought proper to do, that 
he holds the Son of God in higher esteem than his 
opponent, I cannot possibly conceive. I hold that the 
Word, or Logos, can have no superior power in the whole 
universe, and that there can be no glory, equal to the 
glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, dwelling 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 95 

bodily in Jesus Christ. He then proceeds with this 
protracted, syllogistic statement, or proposition, putting 
words into our mouth, and then uttering things that he 
conceives are necessary absurdities, consequent upon the 
•position that he assumes we occupy. He says that three 
persons hold the scepter; that three persons wear the 
crown ; that three persons do this, and three persons do 
that ; we say, but one. I will inform my good brother, 
that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, perform functions 
that are proper to them, as of persons in the Godhead, 
in the great work of human redemption. Hence the use 
of this phrase, however profitable it may be to my oppo- 
nent, to misrepresent our views, I shall pass them by, as 
by no means touching the essential proposition occupied 
by the believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, especially 
with regard to the equality of Jesus with the Father. I 
have no inclination to pass over anything which may be 
regarded as worthy of the argument. 

He closes by inquiring, shall we believe these contradic- 
tions ? Now it may be very convenient for my brother to 
make a system of divinity for his opponent, and having 
set up the standard, he says (this is their faith,) and then 
he has the exquisite pleasure of demolishing the creature 
of his own imagination. This may be his course, but I 
do not think it would be profitable for me, or my doctrine, 
and therefore I will not follow in his track. He refers to 
Christ standing at the right hand of God, when Stephen 
prayed in the hour of his agony, " Lord Jesus, receive 
my spirit." In connection with that prayer, he declares 
he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God ; and if 
Jesus is God, then he says of Christ he saw Jesus stand 
at the right hand of Jesus. Now Jesus Christ, in his 
character as a mediator, is represented as occupying this 
position — the right hand of God. He is in the immedi- 
ate favor of God. He is in intimate communion with 
the divinity, and is in the presence of, or at the right 
hand of God ; that is a position of divine favor, and in 
this position Stephen saw him, and prayed, "Lord Jesus, 



«w 



96 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

receive my spirit." Did he pray to an angel, having a 
limited power ? No ! it was at a period when he 
required the almighty arm to be extended to him. Did 
he appeal to any departed saint ? No ! none of these 
relics of Popery were appealed to. Jesus Christ, in his 
character as God and man, having the sympathies of 
human nature ; he knew that Christ loved him in his 
affliction, that in the power of Jehovah he was willing 
to trust himself in his hands, if life ceased, and his body 
failed, in full confidence he committed himself to the 
arms of his Saviour, and w r ith more than lightning speed, 
his spirit was borne to the compassionate bosom of Christ. 

Mr Summerbeli/s Seventh address : 

My friends, I wish you to remember, that their creed 
teaches that God died ; and their hymn says, 

" When God, the mighty Maker, died, 
For man, the creature's, sin." 

But my brother says, that this is merely poetical license, 
and that no Methodist clergyman believes that divinity 
died. Very well ! we will see. I now hold in my hand 
a Methodist book of sermons, by Eev. T. H. Stockton, 
one of the most eminent orator's in the Methodist Pro- 
testant church. Let us see what he says. 

Bible Alliance, p. 120, " In the beginning w r as the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God — all things were made by him, and without him 
was not anything made that was made. 5 c How was that V 
4 Methinks I hear the communings of God and the 
Word — after the sin of man ; and thus the Word ad- 
dresses God f. ' Was it not by me that thou didst create 
all things, that thou didst make man ? Love may suffer 
as well as work; let love resort to suffering by me; let 
man live. 5 And thus God replies to the Word ; i How 
canst thou bear to become obedient unto death ? how 
canst thou bear even to die on the cross ? 5 " P. 122. 

This, remember, is the pre-existent Logos, or Word — 
the Son before the incarnation. This is my brother 5 s 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 97 

God ; the second person, to whom God says, " How canst 
thou bear to die on the cross ? " 

It is not necessary to bring up all the clergymen in the 
w r orld. My brother said, that no Methodist clergyman 
believed that God died. Mr. Stockton is of his own 
church, and is good authority ; good authority for me 
against my brother. And he is one of their most emi- 
nent ministers. As an orator, I know not his superior. 

I will now notice John i, 1. I could not see the force 
of my brother's argument against the Christians, on this 
text. It says nothing about the Trinity. Isaiah ix, 6, 
says, " that Jesus shall be called the mighty God." 
Philip, ii, 9, says, that he " should receive a name which 
is above every name." And Heb. i, 4, says, that " he 
by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the 
angels ; " so that he gets the name God, by inheritance 
from his Father, (and it denotes his nature,) just as every 
son receives his father's name. God gives it to him, say- 
ing, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a scepter 
of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom; for thou 
hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore 
God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
gladness above thy fellows." Such language as this 
could never be addressed to the supreme God. Gabriel, 
interpreted, is, mighty God, and Elijah, is God Jehovah, 
or God the Lord ; why then should not the Son be called 
by his Father's name ? 

The text reads, John i, 1, " en fyxn fy, o *<6yo$, %<d 6 %6yo$ 
j\v rfp6$ <tbv ®£bv, xui ©so* 7jv 6 %6yo^. i> That is, " In the be- 
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, 
and the Word was God." Was God, is without the 
article tov (the). Logos signifies a word, as Matt, viii, 8, 
" Speak the word (%oyov) only." The same was in the 
beginning with God. So Paul declares that "Aaron 
paid tithes to Melchizedec, being yejfc in the loins of his 
father Abraham." John says, that his design in writ- 
ing this Gospel, was that we might believe that " Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God." John xx, 31. I like my 
9 



98 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

brother's comment by Henry, very well; i. e., "Word 
signifies voice — that is, voice of God ;" and also the ref- 
erence to Proverbs, chap, viii, where wisdom is personi- 
fied as being with " God in the beginning, or ever the 
earth was." This Word, or Logos, my brother says, is 
the second person in the Trinity ; but denies that it was 
the Son. Who then was it ? We believe that Christ is 
truly the Son of God, and that he came out from God ; 
and this text applied to him, proves his divine nature. 
That the Son of God is called God, we have never denied. 
Paul says, that " there are many that are called Gods, 
both in heaven and in earth ; but unto us there is but 
one God the Father." 1 Cor. viii, 5. This text, as applied 
to Christ, also proves his pre-existence. Some under- 
stand it as though it read, represents God, as my brother 
interpreted John xiv, 9. Also, as all Protestants inter- 
pret, " This is my body ;" " The seven lean kine are 
seven years of famine ;" " The seven stars are the angels 
of the seven churches ;" "and the seven golden candle- 
sticks, are the seven churches." Rev. i. 10. 

Macknight, on Rom. ix, 5, thinks, " that Christ in the 
flesh is called God over all, because God hath highly ex- 
alted him, and given him a name which is above every 
name." Storr and Flatt think, that " in consequence -of 
the union of the man Jesus with the Logos, the man is 
God, (p. 420) and has divine honor, and is Lord over all." 
1 Sam. xx, 12, " Jonathan said unto David, O Lord God 
of Israel," &c. So that if they can make the man Jesus 
God, and David is called God ; they need not object to 
the Son of God being called God. 

But what do they make of this text ? Professor Stew- 
art says, " The Logos was with God ; i. e., with the 
Father." " This is capable of no tolerable interpretation, 
without supposing that the Logos, who was with God, 
was in some respect or other, different or diverse, from 
the God with whom he was ; and, therefore, by no means 
to be confounded with him." " If a man should gravely 
assert, that the wisdom or power of Peter is with Peter, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 99 

and add, the wisdom and power of Peter are Peter's ; 
with what class of mystics would we rank him ? What 
could be the object of John, in asserting that the Logos 
was with God ? I answer, to be with one, indicates con- 
junction, familiarity, society. The only begotten Son is 
said to be in the bosom of the Father, which is a phrase 
of similar import. Christians are promised, as the 
summit of their felicity, that they shall be with God." — 
Stewart's " Society" proves a plurality of beings. 

We believe that the Son is the brightness of the 
Father's glory, and the express image of his person ; as 
the image of the bright sun is seen truly reflected in the 
glassy lake, so in Jesus all the Father's glories shine. It 
seems to me, that the great difficulty upon this text, is 
among Trinitarians. They cling to it because of the sound 
of words. Suppose it were admitted that Jesus were truly 
a second supreme or subordinate God, (which it can never 
be) even then it would not suit them, for they reject the 
Nicene creed, " God of God," on this very ground. They 
know not what to make of Jesus. The creeds teach that 
he was a Son begotten before all worlds ; but to secure 
the supreme Deity they reject the Son. But the Apostle 
says, that "there is none other God but one, the Father," 
1 Cor. viii, 4-6 ; and we like Paul's creed best. Let me 
read a little more from their own authors. Clarke ap- 
proves of the doctrine of Philo the Jew, on the Logos, 
and gives a compendium of his views of Christ, of which 
I agree in the following : 

u The Logos is the Son of God ; the first begotten of 
God ; the image of God ; superior to angels ; superior 
to all the world ; by whom the world was created ; the 
great substitute of God ; the light of the world ; who 
resides in God ; esteemed the same as God. The Logos 
is eternal ; he beholds all things ; unites and supports all 
things ; nearest to God without any separation ; free 
from all taint of sin ; presides over the imperfect and 
weak. The Logos is a fountain of wisdom ; a messenger 
sent from God ; the advocate for. mortal man ; he ordered 



100 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

and disposed all things ; the shepherd of God's flock ; 
the physician who heals all evil ; the seal of God ; sure 
refuge of those who seek him," &c. To this the Chris- 
tians do not object, though not worded in Scripture 
language ; but they cannot admit with Clarke, that the 
Logos is a " second divinity." Thus Clarke proves too 
much for my brother. Clarke on John i, 1. Let us now 
hear from another orthodox work of the highest Lutheran 
authority : Storr & Flatt's Biblical Theology, by S. S. 
Schmucker, D. D., second edition, Andover, 1836, 
of Gettysburgh, Pa. " Another reason why the name 
4 Son of God ' is given to the man Jesus, is because, 
according to the will of the Father, he is partaker of his 
divine perfections." " The perfection and dignity which 
are conferred on the man Jesus, by this union, is seen 
most clearly in his present state of exaltation, for it would 
have been impossible that this man could have been 
raised to so great an elevation, that the divine govern- 
ment and divine honor could have been conferred on him, 
and he have been made Lord over all ; nor could ' all 
power in heaven and on earth' have been transferred to 
him," &c, pp. 418-422. 

It seems very easy to make Gods, according to this 
theory. Every person can see at a glance that it is not 
the Supreme God who is here deified, but a man is taken 
into union with the divine Son and called God, Lord, 
etc. They should be careful how they criticise the doc- 
trine of the Christians. As the rays of light striking 
upon yonder wall we call the sun, without meaning that 
they are literally the luminary from which they emanate, 
so the divine penman calls the brightness of God's glory, 
(Heb. i, 2,) God, without meaning that it is literally the 
God whose brightness it is. I will call your attention to 
the descriptions which are given of men, and wish you 
to notice especially, that were such language found in 
the Bible, connected with the name of Jesus, they would 
surely take it to prove his Deity. I will first read from 
Mr. Stockton, one of my brother's own ministers. He 
says — and the language is glowing and beautiful :— 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 101 

T. H. Stockton, p. 49. " There is not a doubt, or the 
shadow of a doubt, to obstruct my steps, or darken my 
path. Like an exile, on returning, I hail my home. Like 
a mariner, I have quit the stormy sea, for the quiet haven ; 
and have only to unlade and distribute the gathered treas- 
ures of other and richer lands. Like a warrior, I have 
served my term, and am released from the battle ; at 
liberty to pitch my tent among the husbandmen, to 
beat my sword into a plowshare and my spear into a 
pruning-hook. Or like an anointed high-priest, in his 
garments of beauty and glory, I am once more permitted, 
as in due course, to retire from the tumult of the world to 
the serenity of the temple : from the fields of labor, from 
the marts of commerce, and from the palaces of power, 
to the incense of the altar, to the silence of the shrine, to 
the sympathy of the cherubim, to the splendor of the 
Shekinah, and to the mercy of the Oracle ; not however 
for my own advantage alone, but that I may come forth 
again with my brow blazing with the name of Jehovah, 
and my breast blazing with the names of the tribes of his 
people ; with my eyes sparkling, my cheeks flushed, my 
breath fragrant, my voice musical, and my lifted hands 
all trembling with the rapture of his once blood-bought, 
but now free and common blesssing. % % % # I 
ask audience, I claim audience, I challenge in particular 
the blind that they may see, the deaf that they may hear, 
and the dumb that they may speak, and the lame that 
they may leap, and the sick that they may revive, and 
the leprous that they may be clean, and the paralytic 
that they may be composed, and the maimed that they 
may be whole, and the lunatic that they may be calm, 
and the demoniac that they may be dispossessed, and the 
imprisoned that they may be free, and the dead that they 
may rise, and all to give audience. * * * * Nay, 
more, I claim the audience of all the inhabitants of all 
the worlds, of all the systems in all the universe. I 
claim the audience of all with no apology to make to 
any ; the audience of all sages and saints, of all angels 



102 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

and archangels ; of all cherubim and seraphim, of all 
thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, 
of all the morning stars that fill immensity with the light 
of joy, and of all the sons of God that fill eternity with 
the music of praise ; but w T ith no apology for any sage 
or saint,4br any angel or archangel, for any cherub or 
seraph, for any throne or dominion, or principality or 
power, for any morning star in all immensity, or any son 
of God, (I speak it reverently — Summerbell,) or any son 
of God to all eternity, rather I honor them by this claim, 
and they will prize the compliment as an augmentation 
of their felicity." — Bible Alliance, pp. 49-52. 

Now had Christ used this language, you all know that 
my brother would have quoted it to have proved him the 
Supreme God. Would they not have said of such words 
as "my brow blazing with the name of Jehovah," "he 
is an impostor if he was not God ? " Yet Mr. Stockton 
is no impostor, but a minister of Jesus Christ, who 
framed this language, no doubt, during a high state of 
intellectual excitement. 

To prove that the perfections of God are ascribed to 
Christ, a few lean texts, not embracing half so much as 
is said of men, are depended upon. But as though our 
blessed Saviour would ever guard us against such false 
theories, he himself has given replies to every such argu- 
ment. 

1. If they say that he is called God, he says that "The 
Father is the only true God." — John xvii, 3. 

2. If they say that he is omniscient, he says, " Of that 
day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the 
Father only."— Mark xiii, 32 ; Mat. xxiv, 36. 

3. If they say that he did all his works by his own 
power, he says, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
the works." — John xiv, 10. 

4. If they say that he performed all his miracles in his 
own name, he says, " The works that I do in my Father's 
name." — John x, 25. 

5. If they say that none but God could do such works, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 103 

he says, " Greater works than these shall ye do." — John 
xiv, 12. 

6. If they say that he is omnipresent, he says, " I am 
glad, for your sakes, that I was not there." — John xi, 15. 

7. If they say that he is omnipotent, he says, "The 
Son can do nothing of himself." — John v, 20. 

8. If they say that he is equal with the Father, he says, 
" My Father is greater than I." — John x, 29 and xiv, 28. 

So carefully on every side does Jesus guard the unity 
of God, that no person could say that he came to seek his 
own glory. 

As they claim that such divine titles and honors prove 
Jesus to be God, let us examine whether these titles are 
not ascribed to men and angels. And if so, according 
to my brother's theory, they also must be Gods. 

1. Men have the name God. Elijah signifies God the 
Lord, or Jehovah. Ex. vii. Moses is called God. — xxii, 
28. It is written, thou shalt not revile the gods. Ps. 
lxxxii, 6. I said ye are gods. John x, 30. He calls them 
gods to whom the Word of God came. 

2. Angels are called God. Gabriel, interpreted, is 
Mighty God. And Michael, is like God. Ps. lxxxii, 1. 
The Lord sitteth in the congregation of the mighty ; he 
judgeth among the gods. 1 Cor. viii, 5. For though 
there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in 
earth, as there be lords many and gods many. 

3. Men have prophets. Ex. vii, 1. See I have made 
thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron, thy brother, shall be 
thy prophet. 

4. Men are worshiped with oblations. Dan. ii, 46. 
Nebuchadnezzer fell on his face and worshiped Daniel, 
and commanded that they should offer an oblation and 
sweet odors unto him. 

5. Men are worshiped in connection with God. 1 
Chron. xxix, 20. All the congregation worshiped the 
Lord and the King, (David.) 

6. Men know all things. Te have received an unction 
from the Holy One, and know all things. 



104 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

7. Men are to judge the world and angels. 1 Cor. 
vi, 2, 3. The saints shall judge the world. We shall 
judge angels. 

8. God's glory is given to men. John xvii, 22. The 
glory which thou gavest me, I have given them. 

9. Saints are one with God and the Son. John xvii, 
21. As thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they 
also may be one in us. 

10. Saints pardon sin. John xx, 28. Whosesoever 
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them. 

11. So also, Jesus said, greater works than these (his 
works) shall ye do. 

Now before my brother again objects to these high 
honors being ascribed to the Son of God, let him either 
admit all these into his Trinity, or explain how the same 
names which are applied to them as creatures, should 
prove Jesus the supreme God, and be too high for him 
as the Son of God ! My brother quotes " I and my 
Father are one." But does this prove equality ? Are 
not a man and his wife one ? Does not Jesus pray, John 
xvii, that we may all be one, even as he and his Father 
are one ? Were not the builders of the Babel tower one ? 

How careful should we be not to misinterpret the 
sacred Scriptures ? He takes one text here, and another 
yonder ; part of a text from this chapter, and part from 
that ; here one about power, and there one about know- 
ledge, and brings them all together, just as a mechanic 
brings together timbers to build a house ; and frames 
them together, and says : " Now is not this God ?" " Is 
not this God ?" " Have I not done it ?" No ! no ! ! you 
have not done it! Tou cannot manufacture Gods. God 
is Eternal. And the Bible believer realizes his exist- 
ence as the eternal One, the great immutable first Cause. 
Let my brother explain the passages which I have quoted 
ascribing glory to men, and by the same process he can 
explain all that he has brought to prove that more than 
One is God. And my brother had better explain them, 
for if the Son be God, he is not the God of the creed, for 



DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 105 

that God is without body or parts, and I am sure that 
my brother does not wish to lie under the imputation 
of holding two Gods. Concerning giving God a body, 
however, my brother has concluded that the creed is 
false, for the creed says that God has no body ; but my 
brother says that God has got a body, yet his brother 
clergyman, Bev. Mr. Mattison, says that to give God a 
body, is no better than atheism. So that, my brother, 
according to an eminent Methodist minister, now in New 
York City, you are no better than an atheist. But I do 
not admit this ; I must defend you. These authors are 
hasty and unguarded in their language. My brother 
admits that the Discipline is wrong, in making the Son 
eternal, since he agrees with Clarke, who says : " If Christ 
be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then he can 
not be eternal." Clarke, Luke i, 25. They believe the 
Son to be simply a man, and yet the Son is the second 
person in the Trinity. In proof of the human origin of 
the Trinity, it is to be remembered that the word Trinity 
was first introduced, in the latter end of the second 
century, and : 

That none of the early fathers were Trinitarians : 

That my brother has not been able to find the word 
Trinity in any of their writings : 

That the first two church historians, Hegisippus and 
Eusebius, were neither of them Trinitarians : 

That Theodosius, the tenth, professedly Christian em- 
peror of Eome, was the first baptized in the faith of the 
Trinity : 

That when he undertook the establishment of that 
doctrine, by the power of the sword, he excluded the 
congregations from over one hundred churches in Con- 
stantinople alone : 

That at that time all the Christian nations rejected it : 

That notwithstanding all the Christian kings of the 
first five centuries, Clovis of France is called the eldest 
son of the Church, because the first Trinitarian king : 

That of forty-five councils held in the fourth century, 



106 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

embracing the largest councils held in the early ages, 
only thirteen of the smaller held the Trinity, while thirty- 
two opposed it : 

That the conversion of the nations to the Trinity, is 
called giving their power to the beast — Rev. xvii, 13 : 

That at one time in the fourth century, Athanasius 
was the only Trinitarian bishop of any note in the world : 

And that although millions of people have been put 
to death to establish it, it is still falling. 

Mr. Flood's Seventh reply: 

My brother quotes Dr. Stewart on John i, 3, who sup- 
poses that God must have been different from the Word. 
How ? Different in substance ? Different in power ? 
Different in glory or eternity ? This seems to be a very 
ambiguous phrase, and if it is not as an exposition, I 
am perfectly willing that he should enjoy its entire 
benefit. He quotes Mr. Stockton, page 122. When that 
eminent divine learns how his name has been brought 
into this discussion, he will consider that no great com- 
pliment has been paid him in the manner in which his 
writings have been used. I will read a passage from 
Mr. Stockton, commencing on the same page. 

" Now thou art glorified with the glory which thou 
hadst with me before the world was. Now thou art in 
the form of God, and thinkest it not robbery to be equal 
with God. Now thou art acknowledged by me and by 
the universe, to be the very brightness of my glory, and 
the express image of my person. How, then, canst thou 
bear, even though only in appearance, to lose my love ? 
How canst thou bear to obscure thy glory, and make thy- 
self of no reputation ? How canst thou bear to take upon 
thee the form of a servant ? Nay, far worse than this, how 
canst thou bear to exchange my image for the fashion of 
man, of sinful man, debased to the likeness of the devil ?" 
Tou see it is in connection with his humanity, that he is 
contemplating this; not in his divinity — not as he existed 
prior to his manifestation. "How canst thou, in thy 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 107 

divine nature, shall God die !" No ! Dr. Stockton never 
uttered it. I used the term Dr., because the honor was 
conferred by the Pennsylvania College at Gettysburgh ; 
but, like Mr. Barnes, he declined the honor — the only 
two living divines who ever rejected the title of D. D. 
This passage, in its connection, is sufficient for the pre- 
sent purpose, to show he does not, in the selection, know 
what notes he quotes, from pages 149, 150, 152, contain- 
ing the elegant language of Mr. Stockton. He thinks 
if I had met with this, as applied to Christ, I should 
have applied it in proof of his divinity. Surely my 
brother has made a grand mistake. When he ventures to 
compare himself to a mariner, might not any traveler, 
on his return to his native land, have dictated this sen- 
timent, and expressed this feeling? " Like a warrior ? 55 
now, it seems that Christians are represented in this 
light, in the Word of God, and required to take to them- 
selves the whole armor of God. I wonder he did not 
charge Mr. Stockton with blasphemy, or guilty of sacri- 
lege, in using such language. He challenges the blind, 
the dumb, the sick, the leprous, &c. Here he alludes to 
the glorious traits contained in the miraculous transac- 
tions of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And the 
brother supposes, that had this language been applied to 
Christ, I should have taken it as a proof that he was God. 
" All thrones, and dominions, morning stars," &c, of all 
these claims he audience, and then demands the audi- 
ence of the Son of God, yet with no apology to any, for 
this claim ; they would prize the compliment as an 
augmentation to their felicity. I hail them afar by the 
silver trumpet of Isaiah, " Hear O Heaven, and give ear 
O earth, for the Lord had spoken." Here, then, is that 
page — he claims the audience of those hosts — he ad- 
dresses them by the silver trumpet ; not of Thomas H. 
Stockton, but of Isaiah. Now, what the brother has dis- 
covered in all this, that could have attracted his attention, 
except it be the sublimity of the language, I am at a 
loss to conceive. Then, with regard to the wonders of 



108 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

God, as assumed by Trinitarians, God is one, Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost: these three are one. There are 
three persons constituting the true Godhead, dwelling in 
the person of Jesus Christ bodily. This, my brother in- 
timates, may be illustrated by the idea, that a man and 
his wife are one ; even, as intimated by my brother, that 
the builders of Babel were one. Now, will he have it 
understood that the builders of Babel were one, in the 
same way that the Father and Son are one ? Had they 
been one in that sense, in the erection of that tower, their 
object might not have been frustrated by the confusion of 
their language ; but they were scattered. So the union 
that exists between Father and Son, may, at some future 
period, be broken up ; and this, I shall show, may be the 
case, if the union exists by a delegation of pow r er from 
one to the other. That there may be such a thing as a 
derangement in the union that now exists, provided that 
it was so, this will be made as clear as the light of day, 
at the proper time. He then goes on to notice some pas- 
sages on the name of God, and shows us that these 
names are applied to man. It so stands, I admit, more 
than once ; but not in the sense in which it is applied to 
the supreme Jehovah ; it is applied to Moses with regard 
to Pharaoh; to David in an address to him, which w T as 
quoted. 

My brother said, I might explain, if I could, how these 
phrases were employed, in reference to inferior beings. 
I here assume that in no instance is this language em- 
ployed, as it would have been, had it been expressive 
of the perfections of the supreme God ; and he will not 
say that it is. He also says, with equal propriety, that 
the same terms were applied to Jesus Christ, w r hich I 
might explain if I would. These terms are applied to 
Jesus Christ, in the same sense that they are applied to 
the Lord Jehovah ; and hence, this changes the face of 
the matter very materially — it is used in the passage 
already quoted, Hebrews i, 8 ; unto the Son he saith, 
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. 55 Here it is 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 109 

applied to Jesus Christ in the same absolute sense that 
it is applied to God, Isaiah ix, 6, " For unto us a child is 
born ; unto us a Son is given, and the government shall 
be upon his shoulders ; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful. Counselor; the Mighty God ; the Everlasting 
Father ; the Prince of Peace." I shall have occasion to 
found an argument upon this passage, at a subsequent 
time ; I quote here to prove that these titles are given to 
Jesus Christ, in the same sense in which they are applied 
to the almighty Jehovah. He says, the parents of Samp- 
son, when they had seen an angel, allowed that they had 
seen God ; and I could have referred him to many simi- 
lar expressions, even ; and thus he quotes the instance 
in which a man highly favored of God, and to whom I 
have already alluded in this discussion, supposes that a 
God was before him, and was about to bow down to him, 
and worship him, even as God; but was forbidden, from 
the very fact, that it would have been idolatry, however 
exalted he was in character, or appearance. So if Jesus 
Christ be not God, then would the same truth necessarily 
follow, that if acts of devotion were paid to him, in the 
sense in which they were paid to the supreme God, those 
acts would be idolatrous in their nature ; but whenever 
devotions have been paid to Jesus Christ, has he ever 
refused to receive them ? 

In the same chapter quoted, Hebrews i, 6, " And again 
when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he 
sayeth, And let all the angels of God worship him." So 
that Christ is worshiped by angels in heaven — they are 
all required to do it. He was worshiped and adored upon 
this earth, and received divine honors, expressed clearly 
in the acts of devotion paid to him, without even charg- 
ing upon those who did it the act of idolatry ; hence the 
matter appears in a very different light when the true 
position of this question is asserted. My brother says, 
that men can manufacture Gods. Whom he supposes 
anxious to manufacture Gods, I cannot conceive. I ap- 
proach this subject with profound reverence. We might 



110 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

sometimes, when we see men disposed to prove great 
things, conclude they might be going out on the business 
of world making ; but the idea of manufacturing Gods, 
seems to be fraught with such sentiments of blasphemy, 
that I cannot dwell upon it, without expressing my ab- 
horrence of the man w T ho could engage in such a business. 

My brother hands me a printed paper of his own, on 
which fifty distinct points of difference are made out be- 
tween his belief and ours, and half of which I design 
noticing, that he may not say an answer has not been 
given. The forty-ninth point which he makes out, is, 
that we hold, divisions among Christians are right. My 
brother, not Methodism, is responsible for this. 

I assert that Methodism teaches no such thing, as that 
division, in the proper sense of the word, is right ; that 
this is ground which I do not wish to enter upon, I 
merely mention it, to show its want of applicability. 

Mr. Summerbell responds with : The proposition re- 
ferred to by Mr. Flood, was not read, and that it was 
erased out on the printed paper handed to Mr. Flood. 

" When ye pray, say Holy Trinity." There is no such 
injunction in the Methodist Discipline ; but I can see no 
propriety in answering what has no connection with the 
subject, and which really has no existence in our Disci- 
pline. 

My brother's friends will now see the reason why I am 
compelled to treat much of his argument in the manner 
in which I do. " We have no God but Jesus." This is 
language which does not occur in the Book of Discipline ; 
and the brother stands responsible for placing such lan- 
guage in the mouth of Methodists, and presenting it as 
their arguments in this printed sheet. 

To say that we have no God but Jesus, is to me, lan- 
guage both new and novel. " He performeth all works 
by his own power." Where the brother quotes that lan- 
guage from, I do not know ; yet he sets it down as drawn 
from the Methodist Discipline. Heb. i, 3, "And being 
the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. Ill 

image of his person, and upholding all things by the 
word of his power, when he had by himself purged our 
sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high." 

So if it is assumed that Christ's power is an independent 
power, it seems to accord very well with this language. 
" Christ is equal with God," is the thirty-sixth proposi- 
tion posted ; to which he quotes as his belief, "My Father 
is greater than I." We quote, " In him dwelleth all the 
fullness of the Godhead bodily ; all power in heaven and 
earth is given into my hands." Again, " I have power 
to lay my life down, and I have power to take it again ;" 
here is the assertion of omnipotent power. 

This is conceived to be all-sufficient, in review of the 
position alluded to by my opponent, on that subject. 

Now let us allude to the reference made again to the 
doctrine, "that our God died;" which he attempted to 
prove. I assert that no such language is to be found in 
our belief. Whenever he reads out to me, that Mr. 
Stockton says that God died, I will say he has a respect- 
able author to maintain a most astounding error. 

That God died, is not only an error of doctrine, it is 
an absolute impossibility ; but now the difficulty with 
him seems to be, that we represent Christ as both God 
and man, showing that he died. It is the right of every 
man, and every party, to explain their own views. We 
hold, and have asserted time and again, that Jesus Christ 
is both God and man — that he possesses a human and 
divine nature, not in two separate and distinct persons, 
but in one, and that in his humanity he died, but that in 
his divinity he lives for ever. 

Mr. Summerbell's Eighth address : 

Kind friends — my brother has made out quite as well 
as I expected. He positively denied that any Methodist 
clergyman believed that God died, or divinity suffered. 
So I read him, Rev. Mr. Stockton, the highest authority 
in his own church. He cannot evade Stockton, unless 
he denies that the pre-existent Logos, by which all things 



112 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

were made, is divine. But having asserted over and over 
again, that it is God — God in contradistinction to the Son 
or humanity ; he has to admit that God died. 

I also brought him Mr. Stockton's language concern- 
ing himself, "My brow blazing with the name of Jeho- 
vah," challenging the blind that they may see, and the 
dead that they may rise ; claiming the audience of all 
worlds, and thrones, and dominions, morning stars and 
archangels, or any Son of God to all eternity ; and saying 
that he had no apology to make to any Son of God to all 
eternity ; and I challenged my brother to find any place 
where Jesus used such boastful language concerning 
himself, or where the apostles used it concerning him ; 
and urged, and still urge, that if my brother were to find 
such language concerning Jesus, he would seize upon it 
to prove his supreme divinity, and that it would prove 
Stockton's divinity by my brother's course of reasoning. 
But he says, that when Mr. Stockton challenged with 
no apology, any Son of God to all eternity, he spoke it 
reverently. No ! Those were my words, I felt an awe 
in reading them, and I said— u I speak it reverently." 
These were not Mr. Stockton's words. But he reviews 
and calls my attention to where Mr. Stockton speaks of 
himself as a mariner, to show that he could not prove 
him God ; but could not my brother apply the two-nature 
scheme here, and say, " Why that means his human- 
ity?" 

My brother spent some time reviewing my little paper; 
perhaps he spent more time upon it than it was absolutely 
worth; but he made nothing out of it for bis side. He ar- 
gues, that in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead. 
" So are we filled with the fullness of God." Eph. iii, 19. 
But does this prove us equal with God ? Is this house 
the sun because filled with its light ; or is a chest filled 
with gold, the gold that is in it ? 

He says, that I asserted that they had no God but Jesus. 
I asserted that this was popular Trinitarian phraseo- 
logy. I did not quote it as belonging to the Methodist 



DISCUSSION ON THE TEINITY. 113 

Protestant Church. In that class of illustrations I inclu- 
ded all Trinitarian and Calvinistic churches. 

He says, that the Methodists do not say, When ye pray 
say " Holy Trinity ;" but the Protestant Episcopal church 
does, and their faith is the same ; the Methodist being a 
part of the same. They say in the Prayer-book : 

1. O God the Father, maker of heaven and earth, have 
mercy on us miserable sinners. 

2. O God the Son, redeemer of mankind, have mercy 
on us miserable sinners. 

3. O God the Holy Ghost, thou sanctifier of our natures, 
have mercy on us miserable sinners. 

4. O God the Holy Trinity, three persons in one God, 
have mercy on us miserable sinners. 

They pray to the whole four of them ; and the prayers 
in the Prayer-book are commanded to be prayed. If 
they be not Methodist, they are quite as orthodox ! 

My brother has been able to bring no text of Scripture 
against us yet; those which he has brought, I have 
proved, had no such bearing, by the very best orthodox 
authorities. He says, that if I worship my Christ, it is 
idolatry ; but he did not prove it ! Angels and saints in 
glory worship God and the Lamb — the Lamb that was 
slain. God has commanded us to worship him, and I 
will obey. But what will my brother do with the very 
man part of his Saviour — the mediator part ? will he 
worship it ? No ; that is a creature. Thus he divides 
his Saviour ; and labels the parts : this is divine, and that 
human ; this is God, and that man ; this may be wor- 
shiped, but not that. Now I worship a whole Saviour ; 
he is one undivided Saviour to me. I want none of this 
cutting and carving. I want no dissecter to pass his 
knife through my Saviour, separating him part from part, 
and telling me which is divine, and which human; which 
God and which man ; which I may worship, and which I 
may not. And I am sure that if we get to heaven, we will 
find an undivided Saviour there. In the Revelation we 
have a scene in heaven ■ "God sits upon a throne, (iv, 3) ; 
10 



114 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

With a book in his right hand, (v, 1) ; The angel cries 
who is worthy to open the book ; and no man in heaven," 
(now mark that) u no man in heaven, nor in earth, nor 
under the earth was able ;" this excludes my brother's 
" very man ;" but though no man was able, yet, said the 
angel, u weep not, for behold the Lion of the tribe of 
Judah hath prevailed to open it. And I beheld, and lo, 
in the midst of the throne, a Lamb as it had been slain," 
(not my brother's God that did not die,) " and he came 
and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat 
upon the throne." Does my brother think that it was 
the same one who sat upon the throne, that came and 
took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon 
the throne ? It was not the man ; because there was no 
man able. And this Lamb the saints and angels join to 
worship. God says, Heb. i, 6, "when he brings the first 
begotten into the world, let all the angels of God worship 
him," i. e., the first begotten. Will my brother worship the 
first begotten ? Is God the first begotten ? if not, who is 
it he worships ? Will he worship the Son ? Clarke 
says, " Son implies inferiority ;" and he agrees with 
Clarke. But if not, if he will not follow the practice of 
angels, why does he quote it? 

My brother next quotes, Is. ix, 6, where he thinks the 
Son is called the everlasting Father ; or at least, the Lo- 
gos is so called ! The Logos is the second person ; are 
there two Fathers ? The Athanasian creed says, " that 
we must neither confound the persons, nor divide the 
substance ; if we do, without doubt we shall perish ever- 
lastingly." I do not believe it, but my brother does ; 
yet here my brother confounds the persons, and makes the 
second person the Father; and the child born, that, he 
says, was very man — that was not the mighty God, but 
the man. This is the lowest form of Socinianism. The 
Socinian believes, that the child born was man, and that 
the mighty God was in the man. But the prophet says, 
that the name of the child born, should be " called the 
mighty God." He says that it is unnecessary to explain 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 115 

the passages which I presented him ! But, if Jesus was 
simply "very man," and only called God because God 
was in him, how could this make him God any more 
than Moses, who is called God ? Exod. vii, 1 ; or those 
to whom the word of God came, who are called Gods ? 
Exod. xxii, 28, or John x, 34, " Thou shalt not revile the 
Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people ;" or " The Lord 
sitteth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth 
among the Gods." "I said ye are Gods." Ps. lxxxii, 1- 
6. Now I want my brother to explain this, " Jonathan 
said unto David, Lord God of Israel" &c, 1 Sam. 
xx, 12. He cannot dispute, that if he found a passage 
which read, "And Peter said unto Jesus, O Lord God 
of Israel," he would bring it up as positive proof, better 
far than any he has found. If Jesus had had a prophet 
and been called God, (Elohim) as Moses, he would have 
considered it good proof of supreme Deity. 

He quotes, Heb. i, 3, " Upholding all things by the 
word of Ms power" to prove that Christ upholds all 
things independent of the Father, by his own power. 
The text reads : 

" God, who at sundry times and in divers manners 
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets ; 
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, 
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom 
also he made the worlds ; 3 Who, being the brightness 
of Ms glory and the express image of his person, and 
upholding all things by the word of Ms power, when he 
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right 
hand of the Majesty on high." 

You see the personal pronoun Ms, all through, applies 
to God ; when it applies to the Son, it changes to him- 
self. So that the text says, that he upholds all things by 
the Father's power. But again, this is the Son, whom 
my brother don't believe is divine. See Clarke, Luke i, 
25. This is a very crooked system. He cannot under- 
stand how so much glory can be given to the Son of 
God. " John presents his likeness, as the brightness of 



116 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

the Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 
His head and hair white like wool, and his eyes as a 
flame of fire — his feet like unto fine brass, burning in a 
furnace — his countenance as the sun, shining in his 
strength, and a sharp two-edged sword proceeding from 
his mouth. Clothed with a white and glistering garment 
down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden 
girdle. Upon his thigh the name written King of 
kings and Lord of lords, and upon his head many 
crowns : thus he walks among the golden candlesticks, 
and holds the stars in his right hand; redeems the worlds 
which he had created, and sits at the right hand of the 
great eternal One, as the only Son, heir, and representa- 
tive of eternity's great King." Will my brother deny 
these titles to the Son of God ? 

He says, that the three persons do not hold the scepter 
in heaven, only one holds it. Where then are the two 
other persons ? Are they standing looking on ? equals 
and yet no scepter ? God and yet no scepter ? Have 
they no crown % no honors ? no divine glory ? Does not 
my brother worship the whole three ? 

Go back, my brother, and try again. Give us a better 
explanation ! They must be equal in glory, for the creed 
says so ! i.e. ? the constitution and Discipline, as he prefers 
that name. My brother next quotes Rev. i, 18. "lam 
he that liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive 
for evermore, Amen ; and have the keys of hell and of 
death." No, said my brother, "I am he that liveth, that 
means the divine nature. And was dead, that means 
the human nature." Who told my brother all this ? or 
did he guess at it ? Read the whole text, and you will see 
that this was the Son of man (chap, i, 13,) that said all 
this. He again quotes John i, 1, but there is nothing 
said of Trinity, or three persons there. Yet he thinks 
that there is an argument for him, because the apostle 
says "all things were made by him ;" but Heb. i, 2, says 
that God made the worlds by his Son ; but my brother 
don't believe that God had a Son, when he made the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 117 

worlds. There is no intimation of the Trinity in the 
Bible. It teaches that God is One and only one, and 
that the Son was with the Father before the world was, 
as says the Mcene creed, "begotton before all worlds ;" 
by whom God created all things. This Son of God is 
rejected in my brother's system. He has no place for 
the Son of God, hence he says, many are called Sons of 
God. But the Scriptures teach us that God has but one 
Son : " Having, therefore, one Son." Mark xii, 6. A 
certain king made a marriage for his Son, not sons. 
Jesus is never called one of the Sons of God, but the Son 
of the living God — the only begotten Son of God — the 
well beloved Son of God — and angels and men are com- 
manded to worship him, as the first begotten, which proves 
that they are not his equals. To which of the angels 
said God, at any time, Thou art my Son ? Heb. i, 5. 
This text shows that they are not the Sons of God. My 
brother has never answered those texts which prove 
that Jesus was God's Son before he came in the flesh : he 
came out from God — came down from heaven — came 
out from the Father — had glory with the Father before 
the world was ; though he was rich, yet for our sakes 
he became poor ; a body hast thou prepared me ; God 
created the worlds by him ; he was made a little lower 
than the angels. So it says that God gave his Son, and 
sent forth his Son, and sent his own Son in the likeness 
of sinful flesh, and that he took upon him the form of a 
servant, and appeared in fashion as a man. Now let my 
brother tell us which nature of his Christ will answer 
this description. 

The truth is, there is no Trinity in the Bible, but one 
God; one Son of God, of the same nature of the Father, 
and one Spirit of God. The Christians believe that there 
is one God, and but one God, and that God is one, and 
his name One, in contradistinction to Trinitarianism, 
which teaches that three persons are all Gocl, and that 
God is composed of three parts, as first person, second 
person, third person, and that his name is three, or 



118 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Trinity. I will now introduce some of the evidence on 
which the Christian faith is founded, and show you that 
this is the faith of the Bible. 

1st. In the creation of the world, Gen. i, 1, we read 
of but One God. "Tn the beginning God created the 
heavens and the earth" And in giving the law, the same 
doctrine is enforced by the command: "Hear, O Israel, 
the Lord thy God, is one Lord" Deut. vi, 4. Also, in 
the New Testament, the same doctrine is enforced. Paul 
says: " God is One." Gal. iii, 20. Prophets and priests 
sang the praises of God, as the Holy One, — the High and 
Lofty One, — and the Mighty One. See Is. li, 15 — xliii, 
15, and i, 24. And there are more than one hundred texts 
where God is called One. But in no one place in the 
w T hole Bible is God ever called three, or Trinity. 

2d. In Deuteronomy xxxii, 12, he is called, God 
alone — and he is called God alone, or the only God, over 
one hundred times ; but nowhere is it said that he is 
not the only God, or that he has two companions. 

3d. In Is. xl, 25, the doctrine is taught that God is 
without equal. " To whom will ye liken me, or shall 
I be equal, saith the Holy One." And in more than fifty 
other texts, we are taught that God has no equal. But 
there is not one text in all the Bible which says that God 
has an equal. 

4th. In John xvii, 3, Jesus declares that his Father 
is the Only True God. And in over fifty other texts, the 
same doctrine is expressly taught. But there is not one 
text, which says that the Father is not the only true God, 
or what would be equivalent, that two other persons are 
as much the true God, as the Father. 

5th. God speaks of himself as the true, and only true 
God, under the personal pronouns, in the singular num- 
ber, as I, My, Me ; in opposition to the plural, Us, 
We, Ours, &c, over one thousand one hundred times. 
"/ even I am He, and there is no God with Me," &c. 
Deut. xxxii, 39. But were there three persons, one could 
not speak thus of himself, but must say We, Us, &c, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 119 

as is always the case, where there is more than one 
person. 

6th. God is called invisible, immortal, the Father of 
all, &c; together with over one hundred and ten divine 
epithets, which are never given to the Son, nor to any 
other person in the absolute sense. 

7th. Jesus says that God is his Father, and his God, 
John xx, 17 ; and teaches this doctrine in over one hun- 
dred places ; but never calls himself God's father, or the 
Father's God. 

8th. Paul says, 1 Cor. viii, 6, That though others, 
both in heaven and earth, are called gods, yet to us there 
is but one God, the Father. And there are thirteen 
hundred and twenty-six texts in the New Testament 
alone, teaching the same doctrine ; but there is not one 
which teaches that the Christians have any other God. 

9th. Other persons, however, are called gods, in the 
New Testament, about twenty times, as follows : Heathen 
gods thirteen times; Jesus three times; magistrates 
three times ; the Devil once; our appetites once ; but 
never so as to deceive any person who has not before 
imbibed the error. 

10th. Jesus says that the true worshipers shall worship 
the Father. Jno. iv, 23. And in hundreds of texts God 
is called a Father ; but never a Son. 

11th. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, by pre- 
cept or example, in over twenty -five places ; but never 
taught us to pray to three persons, or to a second or third 
person. 

12th. The Father is called Jehovah, in the Bible, six 
thousand eight hundred and twelve times ; but no other 
person is ever called Jehovah, without some qualification. 

13th. God is addressed, in the Bible, as one person, 
as "Thou," "He," "Him," over four thousand times. 
Language which is never addressed to more than one 
person, and hence each text is as positive an argument 
that three persons are not God, as though it said, only 
one person is God, or only one of the three is God. Four 



120 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

thousand texts thus define God to be but one person ; 
while he is never addressed or spoken of in the plural 
form of the pronouns, as you, them, they, &c., in one 
single text ; yet this would be the only proper way to 
give them equal glory, if there were three persons God. 
I have now cited thousands of texts, which prove, in 
Bible language, that the Father is the only true God — 
that the Lord our God is one Lord — one Lord and his 
name One — that God is one ; but he has not found one 
solitary text which says Trinity, or God is three, or the 
Father is not the only true God. Now if a faith, not 
found in the Bible, is just as good as one found there, 
what need have we of Bibles ? The text that says, "Let 
us go down," &c, Gen. xi, 16, is a bad one for those to 
quote on this subject, who believe in the omniscience and 
omnipresence of Gocl. I leave my brother to explain it. 
That God should say, Let us make man, is not strange, 
for he made all things by his Son, Heb. i, 1-3, and of course 
spoke to him. So in every case where us is used, God 
speaks to another. So I can say, "let us go" yet I am 
no Trinity. Not only is God never addressed, in Scrip- 
ture, as three persons, but our Methodist brethren, who 
profess to believe that he is three persons, do not so pray 
to him. They never address him with the plural form of 
the pronouns. They do not say you, when praying, but 
thou and thee ; so also in their hymns. They always 
come to one in the name of another, and more often pray 
for, than to, the third. This is almost uniformlv the case, 
except in afewdoxologies of "God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the Spirit — three in one." But in all their prayers 
they feel the unity of God. The Trinity never enters 
into the deep consciousness of their soul's religion, show- 
ing that the unity of the Godhead has entered deep into 
their heart and life. The Father, my friends, is the only 
true God. John xvii, 3. That God is one, the Bible 
asserts. Is it not true ? Shall we not believe it ? "Why 
are you slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have 
spoken ? Is it not good doctrine ? Can not we be saved 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 121 

by the same religion which saved the apostles and early 
Christians ? Dr. Mosheim well says, that the Trinitarian 
creed has been the cause of many heresies. Brethren, 
let us put this human doctrine far from us, and return to 
the pure language and belief of Revelation. Then may 
we all be one again. To prove the Bible doctrine, I have 
cited you to 12,923 texts arranged in classes, and have 
presented you representative texts of each class. If my 
brother will take them up, I am willing to take them up 
singly, one by one. 

Mr. Flood's Eighth reply : 

I must return my brother's compliment, and say he has 
done quite as well as I expected. He asserts that the 
language employed by Stockton would be taken by me 
as deifying the person that used it. My brother labors 
under a serious mistake. I should never once dream of 
connecting such language with divinity, and should never 
have thought, had it been applied to Jesus, of taking it 
as proof of his being a divine Being. I should as soon 
assume that any other conceivable language would be as 
much a proof as that ; but I will not be drawn away from 
the argument by matters having no bearing upon the 
subject, though this is but one of many things of a simi- 
lar stamp which my brother has presented. 

He says of " That in Christ dwelieth all the fullness of 
the Godhead, bodily," that because you may have a chest 
full of gold, therefore the chest w T ould not be equal to 
the gold ; or that because there are multitudes of persons 
assembled in this house, the house is not equal to the mul- 
titude. Well, now, if the fact that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost dwell bodily in Jesus Christ, does not con- 
stitute one God, the true God of the Bible, then I confess 
I would not be able to find a single passage in the whole 
Word of God, that would be illustrative of the character 
and being of God. 

Who ever assumed that the human body, which the 
Word or Logos took upon him, was, in its essential ele- 
11 



122 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

ments and nature equal with the Deity? Who ever 
asserted this ? No one ! We have argued its essential 
equality with human nature as free from sin, but through 
the sacrifice of a suitable atonement it might become a 
mediator between God and man. Thus would pardon be 
secured to the guilty rebel, and the door of hope opened 
to a perishing world. 

My brother, in alluding to the little paper he handed 
me, complains that I do not answer the points to which 
he especially referred. I answered things which I found 
in the little paper; but what has that paper to do with 
the question involved in discussion? Namely, that the 
doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the Methodist Pro- 
testant Discipline, is contrary to the Word of God, in re- 
lation to the equality of Jesus Christ with the Father. 
What has the great mass of lumber, which my brother 
has seen fit to introduce, to do with the proposition under 
consideration ? It is my desire to be found close about 
the subject; and though he is in the affirmative, and 
wanders from the subject, I must not be held accountable 
for it. He would make the Methodists in England, if 
not in this country, accountable for what might be found 
in the Prayer-book and Discipline of the Church of 
England. We were once part and parcel of the Episco- 
palians ; but a separation took place, and now the Metho- 
dist and the Established Church of England are as dis- 
tinct as any two Christian denominations in this country ; 
but I must correct the statements of my brother, which, I 
dare say, he fell into innocently. 

He wishes to know if I will worship Jesus the man, 
or Jesus the divine nature, as my whole Saviour ? He 
does not venture to deny that Jesus was human ; and 
then he turns round and asserts that his brother will not 
worship Jesus Christ. Where the brother gathered that 
information from, I can not state. Jesus Christ is the 
object of my worship. I worship him as the true God — 
as the only tangible manifestation of God — as the only 
object of the faith revealed to the w T orld. The humanity 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 123 

of Jesus Christ is associated with the divine nature mys- 
teriously. The association and manner of it, I do not 
understand. The fact is a fact of Revelation. I worship 
him in his true character as God, the second person in the 
adorable Trinity. I worship him as God, equal in sub- 
stance, power, glory, and eternity, with the Father. I 
worship him in connection with the Father and the Holy 
Ghost, as the one God of the Bible — the only true God. 
Hence my good brother, I hope, will no more make the 
statement that I do not worship Christ. I do not wor- 
ship him as having delegated power. I could not wor- 
ship him if a doubt rested in my mind, that he existed 
at the will of another; that he may be able now to 
grant me all my request, and to-morrow his delegated 
power may be withdrawn, and he maybe unable to grant 
my request, and meet my necessities. 

This doctrine of delegated power, from one being to 
another, who is not co-equal with him in substance and 
in power, involves in it much absurdity — much that is 
impossible; its resemblance to skepticism, is near approxi- 
mation to atheism. If all power in heaven and in earth 
is given into the hands of Jesus Christ, then there is 
no power which is not conferred, and if that power is 
conferred, it is the power of omnipotence ; it is the power 
that supports all material order; it is the power from 
which emanates all material law, that sustains universal 
existence, the comforts of life, both material and imma- 
terial ; it is the source of all existence, if it were, as my 
brother intimates ; the being from whom this power 
was transferred loses his essential attribute — the Creator 
is annihilated, the giver of this power falls annihilated. 
My brother at last admits, that a transfer of infinite 
perfections of the Almighty, to a created being, would 
be a transfer of power that could not exist in two natures 
at the same time. If you admit it, you have the absurdity 
of two infinites at the same time. The brother quotes 
" all power in heaven and earth is given into my hands," 
and then he asserts he has power only from his own life. 



124 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

If the power of supporting his own existence is given to 
him, and he asserts that he has power to lay his life 
down and power to take it again, it involves a contradic- 
tion to what has been asserted by my brother. If he has 
life in himself, he has it not from another. If he has the 
right and the power of sustaining his own life, it did not 
come from another. And when my brother asserts that 
all power is given unto him, he asserts that which is not 
possibly true. While my brother exhorts us to abandon 
these unscriptural phrases and notions, I would, in the best 
of feeling, turn to him, and urge upon him to abandon his 
doctrine, which is an approximation to absolute atheism. 
His position necessarily annihilates the Lord Jehovah. 
I assume that the attributes of Deity, such as omnipo- 
tence, omniscience, and omnipresence, being transferable, 
is in itself an inconsistency. For if these attributes 
could be transferred, the original power ceases, and the 
original existence ceases with it. My brother has been 
greatly concerned about the language of the Poet: 

" God, the mighty Maker, died." 

I may again assure him that Trinitarians have never 
believed it. My brother endeavored to draw the doctrine 
out of the Book of Discipline, but he could not torture 
such a doctrine out of it. 

The promises of Christ must stand. Heaven and earth 
may pass away, but his Word shall not pass away. He 
says, where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them. Now if Christ 
be not omnipresent, how could this be ? There is no ]^ace 
in which he is not. Indeed, he might be in the four divi- 
sions of the globe at the same time, so that he might be 
with the numberless Christians that truly worship in his 
name ; and if he be not omnipresent, it is utterly impos- 
sible that he could fulfill the conditions of his promise. 
But can two omnipresents exist at the same time ? Could 
two persons of omniscient ubiquity occupy the same 
place at the same time ? " If I ascend into heaven, thou 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 125 

art there ; if I make my bed in hell," &c. Here the 
universality of the presence of Jehovah is asserted. He 
claims this attribute for himself, as we have shown ; and 
of Christ claiming this attribute for himself, it is one of 
the essential perfections of his divine nature, and of 
course, it can be possessed by no other being at the same 
time. Surely then, my brother has, in my estimation, 
made a very serious blunder, in introducing the argument 
in the form he has done, and in the present connection. 
He then alludes to my quotation, Heb. i, 3. " Who 
being the brightness of his glory and the express image 
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of 
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat 
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." I 
remark, in purging our sins he did it by himself; he 
did it by himself, by his own authority ; by the exercise 
of his own power, and I inquire, who can forgive sins 
but he alone against whom sin has been committed ? It 
is not a work that can be done by proxy ; that power, 
when he said " the Son of Man hath power on earth to 
forgive sins, " he assumes, to exercise his authority. He 
exercises an almighty prerogative, as the apostle says, 
" when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at 
the right hand of the Majesty on high." I assume it is 
the same person, in the same connection, that upholdeth 
all things by the word of his power. My brother says 
that the unity of God is mentioned in over one hundred 
places in the Scriptures. I am a rigid Unitarian. I 
sustain the Scripture doctrine of the unity of God, the 
oneness of Jehovah, with all the energy I possess, that 
the Lord our God is one Lord, and that this one Lord 
is constituted of three persons — the Father, Word, and 
Holy Spirit. He proceeds to say that more than one 
hundred epithets are applied to the Father, which are not 
applied to the Son. No doubt it is correct ; it is strictly 
proper that it should be so. In one hundred and fifty 
passages, there are epithets employed in reference to the 
Son, which are not employed in reference to the Father ; 



126 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

for one class relate to his humanity, and the other to his 
essential Divinity ; but of which passages, therefore, I 
believe he does mention that there are over thirteen 
hundred texts, which speak of God the Father. If they 
were multiplied a thousand times, I would still indorse 
them. These texts equally support the position I occupy. 
In sixteen hundred passages he is called Jehovah. The 
first occurs when he reveals himself to Israel ; it occurs 
frequently throughout the Scriptures, and is expressive 
of the God of the Bible — the mighty Jehovah. He then 
says, our Trinitarian creed does not sink down deep into 
the heart, and urges us most earnestly, to put it away. 
I thank God that this Trinitarian creed has had a long 
lodgment in my heart — deeply imprinted there. I love 
God, the Father, because he first loved me. I love God, 
the Son, because he came into the world that he might 
be a propitiation for my sins, and not for mine only, but 
for the sins of the whoie world. I love the Holy Ghost, 
because he is the agent awakening me, and bringing me 
to a sense of my perishing state, and danger. I love the 
Holy Spirit, because he is my regenerator and sanctifier ; 
because in his communion he is the Source of joy and 
comfort, by day and by night, in a happy and blessed 
experience of more than seventeen years, when he found 
me a wandering orphan boy, upon the dark mountains of 
sin and folly, and brought me as a broken reed, to the 
feet of Immanuel God ; and I love him, that he has 
sealed me as an heir of an immortal inheritance beyond 
the grave. And hence, these truths have found a deep 
lodgment, sir, in the heart of your opponent. And I 
hope that, in passing Jordan, when I shall dip my san- 
dals into its chilling waves, my Lord shall sustain me ; 
and though the river be wide spread, and its waters dark, 
yet shall I see the pebbles under my feet, but beyond, I 
view the rising spires of the distant City, the New Jeru- 
salem, the home of the saints, where I shall be happy to 
clasp my brother's hands upon that smiling shore. But 
while we are here, we will worship at the shrine of this 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 127 

one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, trusting in 
his might and relying on his power, amid all the changes 
of life, and reign with him — one God, the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, in a better world. 

Mr. Summerbell's Ninth address: 

There is one thing, my friends, that I wish yon to notice, 
all my quotations and references from human authorities, 
are on my brother's side of the house. I prove my ex- 
position of Scripture by his witnesses ; he proves his, by 
his own witnesses, which makes them, in this debate, no 
proof at all. Yet my brother falls back upon these Tri- 
nitarian authorities, as if they were to decide the ques- 
tion. Strange idea ! My friend's closing speech, yester- 
day, was remarkable for four things : 1st. Skeptical mode 
of thought; 2d. Irreverence for the divine attributes; 
3d. Most careful avoidance of mv argument ; and 4th. 
Unsparing lung-power. But my brother should remem- 
ber that the prophet said, " Though a strong wind rent 
the mountains, yet the Lord was not in the wind ; and 
after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in 
the earthquake ; and after the earthquake a fire, but the 
Lord was not in the fire ; but after the fire a still small 
voice, and the Lord was there." It is not the thunder 
that kills, but the lightning ; however, some are often 
frightened with the thunder more than the lightning. 

I liked my brother's exhortation, in his closing remarks, 
much. I am glad that he enjoys the blessings of reli- 
gion. I was quite affected under his good talk about 
passing over Jordan, and dipping his sandals in its 
chilling waves, and wading through the dark river, and 
seeing the pebbles under his feet ; but this does not 
prove the Trinity. 

My friend carefully avoids my argument. I have pre- 
sented above, forty-four philosophical arguments, show- 
ing that God was not Christ, since God could not die, 
could not pray, could not receive power, &c; which are 
all unanswered. My fifth argument, concerning the three 



128 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

infinite persons, he only noticed by saying, that but one 
of the persons held the scepter, or sat on the throne ; 
and to my interrogation of how the two others were en- 
gaged then, or how they were equal ? he gave no answer. 

To my twenty-five arguments and Scriptures showing 
that more was said of men than he had proved of Christ, 
he barely replied, " It is not said in the same sense." 

My interrogation as to the worship of the Lamb that 
was slain, he has not answered. Now, I insist on his 
stating plainly, whether he will worship the human part 
of his God — the human part of his Christ, or only the 
divine part, rejecting God's body ; for he has acknow- 
ledged that God has a body; thus his God, his Christ, 
is part God and part man. Now does he worship all, 
or part ? Will he worship the Lamb that was slain ? 
Will he worship the man Christ Jesus ? 

I proposed him over three hundred texts, proving that 
the Father is the only true God ; but he declines answer- 
ing them. I now insist on his either acknowledging that 
they are irreconcilable with his theory, or answering 
them. Yet I will not ask too much, but if he will ex- 
plain three texts satisfactorily, I will be satisfied. I will 
give him John xvii, 3, and let him tell us how the Father, 
by the personal pronoun thee, singular number, is. the only 
true God, and yet the Son and Holy Ghost as much the true 
God as he ? Also, 1 Cor. viii, 4-8, "Though many both 
in heaven and earth are gods, or are called Gods, yet to us 
there is but one God, the Father." Also, Eph. iv, 4, 
" There is one body and one spirit, one hope, one Lord, 
one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who 
is above all," &c. How is this one God and Father of 
all, greater than all, greater than both the Son and Holy 
Ghost ? Above all ! 

My friend evaded altogether the point in my argu- 
ment of over two hundred Scriptures, where God says, 
" I am God, and beside me there is none else," &c. 
w I insist on the brother meeting these, and explain- 
how one person in the Trinity can say " I am God " 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 129 

in one person, to the exclusion of the " two other per- 
sons," as Jimeson calls them ? I insist upon the gen- 
tlemen either answering, or acknowledging his inability 
to do so. He has frankly acknowledged that God has a 
body. He has also admitted, contrary to his creed, that 
the human and divine^natures of Christ were separated 
three clays and three nights. Would he worship the "man" 
on the cross ? He has acknowledged that the Son of God 
is not eternal — hence not God, in defiance of the constitu- 
tion and Discipl ine. In making these concessions, he falls 
under the ban of his brethren ; for saying God has a body, 
Mattison declares is no better than Atheism; p. 46. In 
denying the eternal Son, they say, he denies the eternal 
Father. His opinion that Christ is the Son of God only 
by the miraculous conception, they say, is groundless, 
absurd and blasphemous. Yet, with all these difficulties 
to contend with, my brother still attempts, vainly at- 
tempts, to find discrepancies in the Christian faith. But 
these discrepancies only exist in his imagination, and 
fall back with tenfold force upon his own contradictory 
system. Eighteen hundred years ago Peter confessed 
that Jesus was the Son of God. Since then, Peter de- 
nied him, but he still remained the Son of God ; since 
then Judas has betrayed him, but still he has remained 
the Son of God ; and since then wicked Jews have cru- 
cified him, but still he has remained the Son of God. 
The persecuting power of Kome could not annihilate 
this doctrine. Porphyry and Celsus the pagan infidels, 
vainly warred against it ; it has stood the shocks of 
eighteen centuries ; the former floods of skepticism, fire 
and sword, have not been able to overthrow it. " Upon 
this rock will I build my church," said Jesus, " and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." John wrote 
his gospel to prove it ; and God from heaven owned it. 
It was the test of fellowship to the eunuch ; and the faith 
that overcame the world to John. God the Father re- 
vealed it, Jesus blessed it, and glory crowned it ; and my 
brother will find that all his endeavors against it will fail 



i 



130 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

The brother proposed to me the following supposed 
difficulties. 1st. When I thanked the Lord, he said, 
very wittily, that he did not know which Lord I thanked. 
Now, he must have forgotten that I am not a Trinitarian. 
I might say of his thanks — though it would be uncourte- 
ous — that I did not know whether he thanked God the 
Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost. But such 
expressions are not reverential, and have no application 
to the Christians, who have but one God, and who own 
but one person as God. 

2d. He appealed very pathetically to know, if the full- 
ness of the Godhead bodily dwelling in Christ Jesus, 
would not make him equal with God, or prove him God ? 
I answer, No. It proves that he is not that God which 
the creed says has no body, but dwelt in him bodily. 
Saints are filled with the fullness of God, yet they are 
not God. 

3d. He endeavors to avoid the prayer to the Holy 
Trinity, on the ground of the English Methodists having 
no connection with the Episcopal church. My brother 
does not understand that subject. All the Methodist 
sects sprang out of the Episcopal church, and the English 
Methodists are still considered as remotely connected 
with that church, and in some of the churches use the 
Prayer-book, and prayers placed in the Prayer-book are 
commanded to be prayed. But the connection to which I 
refer, is in doctrine, which,, on this point, is the same in 
both. 

My friend discussed the omnipotent attributes in an 
unphilosophical style of exhortation. He is deprecating 
delegated power — a term which I have not used — speak- 
ing of Christ Jesus' saying all power in heaven and in 
earth is given unto me, he irreverently remarked, that if 
Christ's power was delegated, he would not trust him ! 
Shocking ! Then he can not trust the Father who sent 
him; for to doubt one is to doubt both. 

Yet he said, the first day of the discussion, that it 
meant that Jesus, to accomplish the great work of re- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 131 

demption, needed the power of the whole three ; that it 
was all given him — so that, on his own admission, he has 
bound himself to reject his Saviour ! But yesterday, in 
his desperate extremity, he cried, "I don't believe it! " 
What ? not believe the Bible ? O yes, brother, you must 
believe the word of Jesus. But again, he said, if he re- 
ceived his power he could not trust him ; literally, could 
not trust the Father, but feared that God would withdraw 
his power from Jesus. Did not his "very man" receive 
his power ? and will he not trust him % 

Not trust his blood ? 

Not trust his word ? 

Not trust his mediatorial aid ? 
How then will my brother be saved ? But he will trust 
this very man though his pow T er be delegated ; then, 
why not trust the Son of God? 

Does he reply, the very man I can trust because of his 
close union with the divinity ; but this union can not be 
as close as the union of the Son vnth the Father. Then, 
why not trust him ? But he says, the very man was sac- 
rificed on the altar of divinity, and thus became all-suffi- 
cient. This is a strange idea ; but if true, is it not just 
as true of the Son of God ? and could not the altar sanctify 
the Son of God as well as a very man ? Then why not 
trust the Son of God ? "He that rejecteth me, rejecteth 
him that sent me, " said Jesus. 

Again, he says, " But if God gave all power to the 
Son^ then there was no power not given : omnipotence 
was conferred to another, and the giver is annihilated ;" 
hence, the giver will cease to exist, God will be annihi- 
lated ! Shocking conclusion ! founded upon principles 
most illogical ! 

But how will my brother avoid the consummation of 
his rashness plunging him into the atheism which he 
courted ? He has admitted that all power was given to 
Christ to make an atonement — that is, all power was 
given to the man. Thus, by his own logic, God gave 
all his power — that is, passed over omnipotence to the 



132 DiscussroN on the trinity. 

very man, a creature, so that this creature became the 
omnipotent God, and God ceased to exist; and his God, 
consequently, is only 1800 years old, and so far from 
being a Trinity of divine persons, is a deified creature, 
with delegated power. Such are the atheistical conclu- 
sions to which he is forced by his unpMlosophical pre- 
mises. But, perhaps he will ask, How can I avoid this 
conclusion ? well, every way. Has not my brother learned 
of God, " that giving does not impoverish him ; nor with- 
holding, enrich him IV Has he thought so little of om- 
nipotence as to imagine that it is confined to heaven and 
earth ? Does he not know that a power limited to heaven 
and earth, is but finite power ? a given amount ? Infi- 
nite power lies all beyond any given amount, however 
great. 

God does not give away his own essential power. 
Paul says, " It is manifested that he is excepted that did 
put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 34. My brother 
said, that if God gave the Son to have life in himself, 
then there would be two self-existent persons ; but that 
two self-existent, or two infinite beings can not exist. 
Very well ; I do not believe in two infinite persons ; but 
my brother believes not only that two, but that three in- 
finite persons exist ; and he can not deny it. If he says 
that the three persons are not three beings, I demand his 
authority for such unnatural ideas. Yet, let him define 
his position, and tell us what he means by a person, and 
wherein a person differs from a being f or what person 
can be imagined that has no being? Yet, he has three 
infinite ones, existing in the same space. Tell me, my 
brother, how three infinites can thus exist? Answer 
your own question, or abandon your system. But, not- 
withstanding his three persons in the Godhead, he claims 
to hold the unity of God. I will let a Hindoo teach him 
knowledge. Eead Eammohun Koy, p. 171. "Should 
we follow, on the other hand, the interpretation adopted 
by Trinitarian Christians, namely, that the Godhead 
though it is one, yet consists of three persons, and, con- 






DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 133 

sequently, one substance of the Godhead, might abide 
with the other, both being equally God, we should, in 
that case, be forced to view the Godhead in the same 
light as we consider mankind and other genera ; for, 
no doubt can exist of the unity of mankind. The plu- 
rality of men consists in their persons ; and, therefore, 
we may safely, under the same plea, support the unity 
of man, notwithstanding the plurality of persons, included 
under the term mankind. In that case, also, Christians 
ought, in conscience, to refrain from accusing Hindoos of 
polytheism ; for every Hindoo, we daily observe, con- 
fesses the unity of the Godhead. They only advance 
a plausible excuse for their polytheism ; which is, that 
notwithstanding the unity of the Godhead, it consists of 
millions of substances assuming different offices, corre- 
sponding to the number of the various transactions super- 
intended in the universe by Divine Providence, which 
they consider as infinitely more numerous than those of 
the Trinitarian scheme." 

My brother next says, that Christ Jesus claimed omni- 
potence. I deny it, and require the proof. Jesus said to 
the Jews, who thus accused him, " Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself." John v, 19. 
He says, Christ claimed omniscience. I deny it, and de- 
mand the proof. Jesus said, " Of that day and hour know- 
eth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only." He 
says that Jesus claimed orrfnipresence. This I deny, and 
ask for the proof. Jesus said, " I am glad for your sakes 
that I was not there." But my brother says, "Did not 
Jesus say, where two or three are assembled in my name, 
there am I ?" Yes ; but Jesus does not say how; and if 
actually in person, yet, though it were in untold millions 
of places, yet would it be a certain number, and so fall 
infinitely short of omnipresence. Omnipresence is every- 
where — everywhere, whether two or three are assembled 
or not — a limited presence is present at certain places. 
This is the case in the text, Wherever two or three are 
assembled in my name, there am I in the midst. My 



134 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

brother believes the evil spirit present in a plurality of 
places ; will he allow less to the blessed Son of God ? 

There is one thing that I wish the audience to remem- 
ber, viz: that I have left no argument of the brother 
unanswered ; and that I have carefully reviewed his few 
scriptures, although I occupy the affirmative, while, 
although my brother is on the negative, he scarcely no- 
tices an argument of mine ; but spends his time in read- 
ing authors with whom he is so unacquainted as not to 
know their names ; or in the delivery of off-hand extem- 
poraneous speeches and exhorations, entirely foreign to 
the subject. 

Let my brother explain the following texts : — 

" For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own 
will, but the will of him that sent me." John vi, 38. 
Which nature came down, the one always down, or God ? 

" But that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
power on earth to forgive sins ; then, said he, to the sick 
of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed and go into thine 
house." Matt, ix, 6. " He was made a little lower than 
the angels," &c. Which nature, the one that was always 
lower, or God ? 

" Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became 
poor," &c. What nature became poor, the one always 
poor, or God ? 

" I have power to lay down my life," &c. Which 
nature had this power, the one that was mortal, or God 
that could not die ? 

" All power is given unto me," &c. To which nature 
is all the power given, the God which always had it, or 
to the man ? 

Let him answer these, and I will present him with 
sixty of like nature. 

The brother's theory is liable to the sore objection of 
having no mediator between God and man. Objecting 
to the Christian doctrine of the Son of God, he has left 
but God and man, with no medium, no mediator between 
God and man ; no divine mediator, and no divine sacri- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 135 

fiee. He acknowledges that God can not die ; and the 
Bible says, " Cursed is he that putteth trust in man," &c; 
and Clarke says, that God will no more accept of man's 
blood, in sacrifice, than swine's blood. 

I will now present him with some texts, showing the 
peculiar attributes of God and the Son of God. 

Peculiar Attributes of God, in Biblical and Philo- 
sophical Arguments. 

1. God is self-existent. 

2. Omniscient. 

3. Omnipotent. 

4. Omnipresent. 

5. Unbegotten and Unborn. 

6. Has no Father. 

7. Is not a Son. 

8. Never prays. 

9. Never gives thanks. 

10. He is always first. 

11. First in creeds, first in doxologies, first in prayers, 

12. And first in the Trinity. 

13. God has no physical body. 

14. He is invisible. — Jno. i, 18. 

15. Only hath immortality. — 1 Tim. vi, 16. 

16. Unchangeable. — Mai. iii, 6. 

17. Is the Father of the Son of God. 

18. Is worshiped with the Lamb. — Kev. v, 13. 

19. The God who gave his Son. 

20. Will finally reign all in all.— 1 Cor. xv, 28. 

21. To whom the Son will be subject. — Verse 24. 

22. Is not the Son of man. — Num. xxiii, 19. 

23. Is not a man. — Ibid. 

24. Does not repent. 

25. Can not be tempted. 

26. Does not sleep, hunger, or thirst. 

27. His will is supreme. — Jno. vi, 38. 

28. His Son is at his right hand. — Acts vii, 56. 

29. God of the Son of God.— John ii, 17. 



136 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

30. Only true God. — John xvii, 3. 

31. The but one God the Father.— 1 Cor. viii 6. 

32. The God who is above all.— Eph. iv, 6. 

33. Greater than the Son. — John xiv, 28. 

34. Greater than all. — John x, 29. 

35. Incorruptible. — 1 Tim. i, 17. 

36. Only wise God.— Ibid. 

37. King eternal. — Ibid. 

Peculiar ities of the Son of God. 

1. Jesus is the Son of God. 

2. A mediator between God and man. 

3. Our advocate with God. 

4. The Lamb that took the book out of God's right 

hand. — Rev. v, 7. 

5. The way to God. 

6. The high-priest appearing in the presence of God. 

Heb. ix, 24. 

7. The Son whom God sent. 

8. The Son whom God gave. 

9. The true vine, of which we are branches, and 

God the husbandman. 

10. The Son sent last of all. (Parable of vineyard.) 

11. Son who sits down with the Father in his throne. 

12. Who maketh intercession for us. — Heb. ix, 25. 

13. Son who shed his blood for us. — Heb. ix, 14. 

14. The Lamb of God.— John i, 29. 

15. The one to whom God gave the Revelation. — Rev. 

16. To whom God gave all power.— Matt, xxviii, 18. 

17. Who came down from heaven, not to do his own 

will. — John vi, 38. 

18. Sought not his own glory. 

19. Abode all night in prayer to God. 

20. Cried, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. — Matt. 

xxvii, 46. 

21. Did all his works in his Father's name. — Jno. x, 21 . 

22. The Prince of life, who was killed. — Acts iii, 15. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 137 

23. The Word that was with God.— John i, 1. 

24. The Word that was made flesh. — Yerse 14. 

25. Who lived by the Father.— John v, 26. 

26. Now lives by the power of God. — 2 Cor. xiii, 4. 

27. Has not the disposal of places at his right hand. 

Matt, xx, 21. 

28. Was strengthened by an angel in the garden. 

Luke xxii, 43. 

29. Is the brightness of God's glory. — Heb. i, 2. 

30. And the express image of his person. — Heb. i, 3. 

Mr. Flood's Ninth reply : 

I am deeply interested in the brother this morning, in 
view of the past, that in his language, he has so completely 
reversed the usual order of things. I had hoped that in 
the conducting of this discussion, the simple, manly, 
honorable, argumentative course, would have been pur- 
sued. I had hardly expected, from the reputation of my 
distinguished brother, that he would find it convenient, 
in violation of the rules of order, to descend to personal- 
ities, in Billingsgate. I regret this, for the reputation 
of my brother, but since he has chosen the jolly way, I 
may be with him occasionally. The truth, in my hands, 
shall not be allowed to suffer, simply because an oppo- 
nent may descend from that high stand that ought to 
be occupied, in a debate of this character. He set out 
with the complaint, that he wishes you to notice parti- 
cularly, that his opponent has, invariably, shunned his 
arguments, and failed to answer the texts of Scripture 
which he quoted. He then makes a great ado about my 
selections of authors. He as much as intimates that I 
am a stranger to religious authorities; this is a great 
assumption, and something I would not have said of 
him. I accidentally misnamed an author, in consequence 
of taking up a book, the appearance of which was strange 
to me, and the brother makes great capital of this, and 
states that I am entitled to credit for four things, among 
them is irreverence for the divine attributes. Here I am 
12 



138 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

gravely charged with treating irreverently, the attributes 
of the supreme Jehovah. Heaven and earth are wit- 
nesses that I never felt the slightest irreverence, in 
dwelling on the subject he regards with so much impor- 
tance. With this, I leave the charge for honest men to 
decide. He says the spirit of skepticism is manifested 
in me. I will simply reply that every grade of skepti- 
cism, sympathizes more with the views of my opponent. 
The atheist denies the Deity of Jesus Christ ; the deist 
denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ ; one of their authors 
says that the Christians have deified humanity. We 
deify only the true Jehovah ; all other grades of skepti- 
cism sympathize, more or less, with my good brother. 
And should he select Hindoos, Chinese, or any other 
portion within the world, and associate me with their 
views, I am sure I will be willing, so far as their views 
are correct, to endure the affliction. 

He says I am entitled to credit for the amount of wind 
I have expended, and then he seems to express the 
idea, that I became overmuch affected, when talking 
about the subject of Jordan. My good brother made 
a speech, about which I will not say it was whin- 
ing, but there certainly seemed to be crying without 
tears, and I requested my brother not to indulge in such 
a paroxysm again. As regards my voice, I have some- 
what of a stentorian one. If I lifted it, being inspired 
with the great truths I was uttering, and it became 
afflictive to my brother, because it might find a lodgment 
in honest hearts, if from this he regards it unfavorably, 
I am sorry. Nothing, he says, had affected the great 
truths which he represented here, not even the floods of 
old. It is a rare circumstance to see a flood on dry 
land ; and I suppose the presence of a flood has been the 
subject of some interest to my brother, though I may not 
have lifted the flood-gates, yet the brother, however, 
seems to desire the privilege of a bath. 

I have been thinking of my good brother Stimmerbell. 
I do not know whether his bell jingles in the winter ; it 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 139 

seems it is but a Summerbell. He has made his appear- 
ance among us here to rattle his bells. Now bells, when 
sound, are clear and distinct, but when they become un- 
sound, they give an uncertain sound ; and if so, who can 
prepare himself for the battle. He now desires to know, 
whether I will worship the human nature of Christ, and 
though this inquiry should be made for the nine thou- 
sand, nine hundred and ninety-ninth time, I will answer 
him again, as I have done before. He thinks if I would^ 
an Indian boy would stagger at the idea. I, and all the 
orthodox Christians, give to Jesus Christ but one person, 
and he has that one person — and he has that one person 
and identity in heaven. That he was the Word, or Logos ; 
that he was made flesh, and came and dwelt among us ; 
that he was the brightness of his Father's glory, and 
" upheld all things by the word of his power." At the 
shrine of this God we worship ; hence, I worship Jesus 
Christ as God, and not as a creature, as my brother 
does. I worship him as God, possessing the attributes 
of the supreme Jehovah, and hence, he is entitled to my 
adoration. The brother quotes: " I am God, and beside 
me there is no God." I quote : " I am God, and beside 
me there is no Saviour." There is but one God in the 
universe, the supreme Being, and true God ; that God 
consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
and these three are One. For in Jesus Christ dwelleth 
all the fullness of the Godhead bodily ; and hence it is 
evident, that as there is but one God, that he consists of 
three persons, equal in substance, glory, and eternity. 
Now, if there is no Saviour beside this one God, and 
Jesus Christ be a separate and distinct being from the 
Father ; Jesus Christ is no Saviour. This is a fair con- 
clusion ; and if he is no Saviour, then my brother is here 
to-day without a Saviour ; but I hope better things for 
him, for I hope to meet him in heaven. He arrives at 
the conclusion, that the Methodists in England are con- 
nected with the established church. I said, and I repeat, 
that they are as remotely connected, as far as all organ- 



140 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

ization is concerned, as any two churches that exist in 
this country. They may have some forms of worship 
and discipline, that may agree with the Episcopal church, 
just as in my brother's church, which he calls the Chris- 
tian church, there are forms the same as those of other 
denominations that existed before they were thought of. 
For this Christian church, as it is called, dates back, 
perhaps, half a century. 

Now here, with reference to the word Christian, I pre- 
sume that the term was received by the Christians, in the 
same way that the Methodists w T ere first called Method- 
ists. The Christians were first so called at Antioch ; but 
there was a church before that time at Jerusalem, but 
they came to be distinct, as Christians, at Antioch, and 
there can be little doubt that it was given as an epithet of 
reproach to the followers of Christ. The Methodists 
received their designation, as a body of disciples, at 
Oxford, one hundred and forty years ago, when they met 
for the purpose of worship. It had been previously given 
to a body by the Romish church, but Mr. Wesley con- 
sented to be called Methodist, by the world, though it 
was regarded as a term of reproach, upon the principle, 
to be counted anything, or nothing, for Jesus' sake. The 
brother says, he would like to have his opponent to blow 
and strike for him. I would not express so mean an 
opinion, that I wxmld take him into apprenticeship. I 
am not disposed to treat a Gospel minister in so light a 
manner, as though it were a trade or profession. I 
regard it as a high calling of God, in Christ Jesus ; 
hence, however desirable it may be, to have my good 
brother with me, to labor in the cause of Christ, I could 
not presume to scornfully treat him as an apprentice boy, 
whose first exercises were those of blowing and striking. 
He inquires again, respecting the sacrifice of Christ's 
human nature. I assume that Jesus Christ suffered upon 
the altar of Divinity, a sacrifice, a perfect human nature ; 
that the Divinity could not do this, and that the human 
nature was associated with it, that it might die, and it 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 141 

became indispensable to the Word, or Logos, to be identi- 
fied with the humanity. How this is sustained, I never 
presume to explain. He asserts the existence of two 
natures, but only one person — by the orthodox he is 
worshiped as God, possessing all the attributes of the 
Divine mind. He thinks, however, that if omnipotence 
passed over to the humanity, then my God would have 
been annihilated. It has nowhere been asserted, that 
omnipotence did pass over to humanity, but that Jesus 
Christ, as the second person in the Trinity, did possess 
all power, majesty, and glory. <; All power," he says, 
" is given into my hands." I shall notice again, the 
clearly logical conclusion and Scriptural testimony, in 
favor of the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence 
of Jesus Christ ; the essential attributes of the Divine 
mind center in him. I have never said that his human 
nature itself, separated from the Divinity, possessed these 
attributes. Hence my brother cavils at his own work. He 
asserts that his brother is ignorant of the knowledge of 
God, and I speak this to his shame. Exceedingly cour- 
teous, this. I think him very respectful ! It is generally 
thought, that even little boys at school, are discouraged 
by being charged with ignorance. I would not take the 
liberty with a school-boy. But my brother takes the 
liberty of arraigning his opponent, and saying, "My 
brother is ignorant of the knowledge of God." 

For the present, my brother, I will not retort upon 
you. He must have been very much disquieted during 
the night. He has possibly spent a sleepless night, on a 
thorny couch, arising from the failure of the arguments 
he presented, and he is thus so discouraged, that he is 
obliged to bellow out those things. He seeks to enlighten 
me, by referring me to a Hindoo author. He did not, as 
a wise servant of God, take up the Scripture oracles, as 
I have been laboring to do. 

What is 'the character of his Christ, and his Saviour ? 
and what relation does he sustain to God? and what 
kindredship to humanity ? This point, my good brother 



142 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

has very carefully avoided. But he tells what a Hindoo 
author has to talk about, and drives off from the land of 
Bibles, and Christian churches, to enlighten his poor, 
besotted, ignorant brother, about the Hindoo creed. Now 
he desires me to pay some attention to his texts of Scrip- 
ture. John v, 26, " For as the Father hath life in 
himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in 
himself." He requests that I should notice, and answer 
this. I will try to do so. It is a text I have quoted 
several times ; I am sorry my brother has forgotten it. 
" I have power to lay my life down, and I have power to 
take it again." " No man," Christ said, " taketh my 
life from me." I understand by this, that Christ has 
omnipotent power to sit in his humanity, or Divinity. 
We never had but one person. I have power, says 
Christ. He is careful to know which nature makes this 
assertion. I hold that there is but one Christ, and that 
he has almighty power ; that he asserts this as God, and 
could not assert it if he were not God. He quotes Heb. 
ii, 9. " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower 
than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with 
glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should 
taste death for every man." He desires I should explain 
this passage: " he was made a little lower than the angels." 
In his human nature ; not in his Divine nature. It could 
not be in his Divine nature ; for were he equal, or infe- 
rior, he could not have said, " Let all the angels of God 
worship him." Hence this reference is doubtless to 
the human nature, being made a little lower than the 
angels. This accords with the language of the Psalmist 
to the apostle — corroborates the same. That he was made 
a little lower than the angels, does not indicate humilia- 
tion in his Divine nature. He was infinitely above the 
angels, and thereby entitled to their adoration and wor- 
ship. " Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became 
poor." In which of these natures did he become poor ? 
Here my brother supposes he has met with a very serious 
difficulty. We remark, that Jesus Christ, in his incarna- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 14:3 

tion, disowned himself, voluntarily, the riches and glory 
of this world. He was the poorest of beings, as far as 
earthly comfort was concerned. His life was a life of 
sacrifice, and of toil. He did not come as an heir of an 
earthly estate, but was born of poor parents. He found 
his first bed in the manger of a stable, and from this 
appeared — throughout his entire life, he was deprived of 
the ordinary comforts that other men enjoy. Though 
boundless riches were at his command, thrones, domin- 
ions, principalities, and powers, all things were made by 
him, and for him ; yet we find him for thirty-three years 
extremely poor. " The foxes have holes," said he, "and 
the birds of the air have nests ; but the Son of Man hath 
not where to lay his head." I thank the one living and 
true God, that Jesus Christ did thus become poor, that 
we, through his poverty, might be rich. 

Mr Summerbell's Tenth address : 

My brother poured a stream of personalities upon me, 
which, of course, he considered added greatly to the 
force of his speech ; but it makes little difference to me, 
so I defend my Saviour — and such arguments are not 
very convincing to intelligent people — yet they have been 
the most weighty ones offered in favor of creed-doctrines 
for many years. 

By irreverence to the divine attributes, I alluded to his 
making one destroy another, and asserting that if God 
gave all power to the Son, that he ceased to be God, &c. 
He yet insists that all power was given to Christ. Very 
well. He defines all power to be omnipotence ; but he 
thinks that it was not given to the humanity. Surely it 
was not given to God the Son — to the divinity. Come, bro- 
ther, explain. You thus make your logic destroy your 
God. I am sorry for you — but cannot aid you except 
by showing you a more excellent way. Because I read a 
Hindoo author, who classed the idolatrous Hindoos all 
on my brother's side, he seems to be much troubled. I 
do not know what he will do about it. He agrees with 



144 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Clarke, and Clarke, who acknowledges that the Trinity is 
not revealed in the Old Testament, goes to the heathen 
writings, and finds it recorded there, while it was 
not revealed to the Jews. Let me read Clarke on 
John i. 

"Testimonies concerning the personality, attributes, 
and influence of the WORD of God taken from the Zend 
Avesta, and other writings attributed to Zoroaster. ' Let 
thy terrible WORD, which I pronounce, O Ormusd ! ele- 
vate itself on high. May it be great before thee and sat- 
isfy my desires.' Zoroaster consulted Ormusd, and spoke 
thus to him : ' O Ormusd, absorbed in excellence, just 
judge of the world, pure, who existed by thy own power, 
what is that great WORD given by God — that living 
and powerful WORD. O Ormusd, tell me plainly, who 
existed before the heavens, before the waters, before the 
earth, before the flocks, before the lire, the child of Or- 
musd, before men, before the whole race of existing be- 
ings, before all the benefits, and before all the pure germs 
given by Ormusd V 

Again I will read Clarke on Luke i : 

" BRAHMA ; the Deity in his creative quality. 
m YISHNOO ; he who filleth all space ; the Deity in 
his preserving quality. 

MAHESA ; the Deity in his destroying quality." 

"This," says Clarke, "is properly the Hindoo Trin- 
ity: for these three names belong to the same being." 

Thus you see, by the testimony of their own authority, 
the Trinity existed among the heathen, and was plainly 
set forth in their writings, while yet there was not a word 
of it in the Bible. By" turning to the Chinese, we find 
also, the Trinity among them. 

I will read again from Clarke: "Testimonies con- 
cerning a Trinity among the Chinese, and concerning 
the word of God. 

"Among the ancient Chinese characters which have 
been preserved, we find the following (A), like the Greek 
delta, and since written (H). According to the Chinese 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 145 

dictionary, Kanghi, this character signifies union. Ac- 
cording to Choue-ouen, a celebrated work, A is three 
united in one. The Lieou chou tsing hoen, which is 3, 
rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, 
says, 'A signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good 
of man, of the heaven and of the earth, 'tis the union of 
three.' " 

My brother charged me with atheistical tendencies. I 
do not wish to retort — but all can see that although his 
doctrine is not in the Bible, it existed among the heathen 
long before it did in the church, according to their best 
authorities. 

Let me read you the more Christian views of Philo Ju- 
deas, on the Word : " The Word by which the world was 
made, is the image of the supreme Deity, as we perceive 
the sun's light though the sun itself, is not seen — and 
behold the brightness of the moon, though its orb may 
not appear to the eye ; so men look up to, and acknow- 
ledge the likeness of God in his minister, the Logos, 
whom they esteem as God." He attempts to describe 
his nature by representing him as not uncreated like God, 
nor yet created as man, but of a divine substance. " For 
the Word of God, which is above all the host of heaven, 
cannot be comprehended by human wisdom; having 
nothing in his nature that is perceptible to mortal sense. 
For being the image of God, and the oldest of all intelli- 
gent beings, he is seated immediately next to the one 
God, without any interval of separation. This, in the 
language of Scripture, ' is sitting on the right hand of 
God.' " He adds, " For not being liable to any volun- 
tary or involuntary change or falling off', he has God for 
his lot and portion, and his residence is in God." The 
like is mentioned in another place, where he is repre- 
sented as sinless, and as the great High-priest of the 
world. "We maintain that by the (true) High-priest, is 
not meant a man^ but the divine Word, w T ho is free from 
ail voluntary and involuntary transgressions, being of 
heavenly parentage, born of God and of that divine wis- 
13 



146 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 

dom, by which all things were produced. He speaks to 
the same purpose in another place, where he makes men- 
tion of the Word." — Clarke, on John i. 

He gave a very witty exposition of my name ; all very 
well in its place, but quite out of place here. 

With respect to worshiping the human nature of 
Christ, my brother is yet in difficulty. They say, that he 
was "very God and very man," and these are united 
never to be divided. Now, if they do not divide them 
in their worship, but as he says, they worship Christ as 
God, does he not worship the very man as God ? and, 
hence he is, according to his own showing, an idolater. I 
do not say this of myself, but according to his own exposi- 
tion, he worships Christ as a whole Christ in one person, 
very God and very man, with human soul and a physical 
body. This makes him worship four persons. For God 
is three persons, and a very man with human soul and 
body, and all things pertaining to man's nature is an- 
other person, and that makes four persons. Is this in 
accordance with the Bible ? And yet he anathematizes 
his brother. My brother quotes from the Old Testament, 
"I am God, and beside me there is no Saviour," and 
concludes, if there be no Saviour but this God, and Jesus 
be a separate being from the Father, then he is no Savi- 
our. Why does he not say a distinct person ? He be- 
lieves that he is, and the text says, beside a me" i. e., 
only one person. So that my brother turns Jew, and 
denies Christ. Let me ask, Is my brother's " very man" 
a Saviour, or is the man, that God ? The true explana- 
tion of the text is this, that this was written before Christ 
was sent to be a Saviour ; still, Christ is not a Saviour 
beside, or independent of God, but God saves us by his 
Son. My brother next speaks of the Christian name, as 
though it were some sectarian name, like Methodist ; but 
Clarke gives up, that the name Christian, was given by 
divine appointment ; and my brother will not deny his 
own authority, though he denies the Christian name. 

He says, that he has nowhere asserted, that omnipo- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 147 

tence passed over to the human nature. Indeed ! My 
brother's way is not only novel, but very crooked. 

I appeal to you, whether you have not heard that ar- 
gument here? But to whom, or what, then, was all 
power given ? Not to the divinity, surely ? He says, 
that the Son was the second person in the Trinity ; but 
the other day, he denied that the Son was eternal, only 
claiming eternity for the Logos. He now says, that the 
Son received all power ; but will not this annihilate the 
two other persons, according to his former argument ? 
He only shifts the difficulty, but does not get rid of it. 
If all power be given, it must be given to God or man ; 
which was it ? He complains that I do not give the 
Bible as my authority ; yet in the next breath, says, " I will 
now answer some of his texts, " but then complains, that 
he "has not time to answer them all." That is, Zdo 
not quote Bible authority, yet he has not time to answer 
all the texts I quote from the Bible. He again refers to 
the text, " I have power to lay down my life." I ask, 
Has God power to lay down his life ? My brother con- 
tends that he has not, and yet quotes the text to prove 
that he has ! You see, my brother believes that he has. 
Do not thousands believe it ? 

Let me read you a few extracts from their best authors, 
and see what Trinitarians say : "God, the mighty Maker, 
died for man, the creature's sin." — Dr. Watts. " The 
very heart of God bleeding, and the sole author of life 
expiring." — Dr. Barrow. u He, the Christian believes 
him to have been a weak child, and carried in arms, who 
is the Almighty, and him once to have died, who only 
hath life and immortality in himself." — Lord Bacon. 

Dr. South speaks of him : "Who created, and at pres- 
ent governs, and shall hereafter judge the world ;" as 
being " abused in all his concerns and relations, spit 
upon, mocked, and at last crucified." "Hereby perceive 
we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." 
Jno. i, 16. Though there is nothing, in the Greek, cor- 
responding to the word God in this passage, yet, as it 



148 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

was inserted by the English translators, who were Trini- 
tarians, I see not how it can be objected to as evidence 
in this case, as proving that they believe that God died. 

MacJcnigJit says : " It need not surprise us that Christ 
in the flesh is called ; God over all blessed forever, since 
God hath highly exalted him 5 in the human nature, c and 
given him a name above every name, 5 Phil, ii, 29 ; c and 
hath put all things under his feet,' 1 Cor. xv, 27 ; • and 
will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom 
he hath ordained. 5 55 Acts xvii, 31. 

He complains that my bell gives such an uncertain 
sound, that he cannot prepare for the battle. I think 
that he understands the sound, however, and that this is 
the reason why he cannot prepare for the battle. He 
thinks that at his incarnation. Christ divested himself of 
his glory, and became poor — what Christ? not the 
human infant surely, but the Divinity. He says that 
" he was very poor for thirty-three years !" That is, 
God was very poor thirty-three years ! for such is the 
only rational construction of his words. Let that pass. 
Try it again, my brother. It will hardly do to say that 
the unchangeable God was very poor for thirty-three 
years ! That the God, without a body, had not where 
to lay his head. 

He says on Heb. ii, 9, that it was the human nature 
that was made a little lower than the angels. This will 
not do, for that always was lower, and needed not to be 
made lower. " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he 
became poor. 55 This could not be the unchangeable God, 
for he never became poor, nor the human nature, for that 
had never been rich ! It is true of the Son of God, and 
is good Christian doctrine ; but these texts are capable 
of no explanation, according to their system. It will 
not do to say that God became poor, and was made a 
little lower than the angels. 

I will now present my brother with another list of 
arguments and texts upon this subject. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 149 

1. According to their system, Jesus was that Father 
who sent him. 

2. That God who gave him. 

3. The God whom he prayed to. 

4. That God he came out from. 

5. They believe that he is the God who begat him. 

6. And the God who sent him. 

7. They believe that when he prayed, he prayed to 
himself. 

8. That he thanked himself, and sent himself, and 
glorified himself. 

9. That he bore witness of himself. 

10. Came out from himself, and went back to himself. 

11. They believe that he sits at his own right hand. 

12. Is his own Father and his own Son. 

13. That as our advocate, he pleads with himself. 

14. As our intercessor, he prays to his divine nature. 

15. As our sacrifice, he is offered to his divine nature. 

16. As our atonement, he pays his divine nature. 

17. As our Mediator, he stands between us and his 
divine nature. 

18. Sits down at the right hand of his divine nature. 

19. Is ignorant of what his omniscient nature knows. 

20. Cannot do what his omnipotent nature does. 

21. Was glad he was not where his omnipresent nature 
was. 

22. That he left heaven, but remained there at the 
same time. 

Now, if my brother can make this congregation 
swallow all these contradictions, I am much mistaken. 

Thirty texts containing the words of Jesus, which are 
plainly contradicted by the doctrine of the Trinity. 

1. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will. 
John vi, 38. Yes, your own will, they reply. 

2. I must be about my Father's business. Luke ii, 49. 
No, it 's your own business. 

3. All things are delivered unto me of my Father. 
Matt, x, 34. You always had all things. 



150 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

4. Luke xi, 20, If I with the finger of God cast out 
devils. No, you do it by yourself. 

5. No man hath ascended up into heaven, but the Son 
of man, which is in heaven. John iii, 13. No, not the 
Son of man, but the divine nature. 

6. God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son. John iii, 16. No, he came himself. 

7. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me. 
John iii, 34. No, but your own will. 

8. The Son can do nothing of himself. John v, 19. 
Yes, he can do all things of himself. 

9. The Father hath given the Son to have life in 
himself. John v, 23. The Son is self-existent with the 
Father. 

10. I can of mine own self do nothing. John v, 30. 
He can of his own self do all things. 

11. I am come in my Father's name. John vii, 43. 
No, in his own name. 

12. My doctrine is not mine. John vii, 16. Yes it 
is his. 

13. If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak 
of myself. John vii, 17. He speaks of himself, when 
he speaks of God. 

14. I am not come of myself. John vii, 28. They 
say that he did come of himself. 

15. I go to him that sent me. John vii, 33. They 
don't believe that he came out from God. 

16. I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath 
taught me, I speak these things. John viii, 28. He 
can do all things of himself, say they. 

17. I speak that which I have seen with my Father. 
John viii, 38. 

18. The truth which I have heard of God. John 
viii, 40. 

19. I proceeded forth and came from God, neither 
came I of myself, but he sent me. John viii, 42. 

20. I seek not mine own glory. John viii, 50. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 151 

21. If I honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is the 
Father that honoreth me, of whom ye say, that he is 
your God. John viii, 54. Here Jesus clearly distin- 
guishes between God and himself. 

22. I have power to lay down my life, and I have 
power to take it again. This commandment have I re- 
ceived of my Father. John x, 18. 

23. I said I am the Son of God. John x, 36. No, 
the Jews understood him to make himself God, and they 
were right, says my brother. 

24. I have not spoken of myself, but the Father gave 
me a commandment, w T hat I should say. John xii, 49. 

25. Even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. 
John xii, 50. 

26. I will pray the Father. John xiv, 16. 

27. Of that day knoweth no man — no not the angels, 
neither the Son, but the Father only. Mark xiii, 32 ; 
Matt, xxiv, 36. 

28. All power is given unto me. Matt, xxviii, 18. 
No, " we will not trust in delegated power," say they. 

29. Father, this is life eternal, that they might know 
thee, the only true God. John xvii, 1-3. No, the Son 
and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God, as the 
Father. 

30. I ascend to my Father, and to your Father, to my 
God, and to your God. John xxi, 17. 

I want my brother to explain to us how he can be de- 
fending Methodism, while he is at one time renouncing 
one part of it, and at another time another part ! I am 
willing to admit, that he possesses wit — a good degree of 
knowledge, and considerable power, and that he is capa- 
ble of bringing forward all those proof-texts generally 
relied upon ; and in short, that he could defend the doc- 
trine, if it could be defended ; but it cannot. It cannot 
be found in the Bible, and how can it be defended by it ? 
He has already given up a goodly portion of his creed, 
and I want him to acknowledge it. Tell the congrega- 
tion, brother, whether you have not given it up. Have 



152 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

you not given up Art. first, which says, that God has 
no body ? Have you not given up Art. second, which 
says, that the two natures were never to be separated ? 
Have you not given up that the Son, the second person 
in the Trinity, was not eternal ? 

I will now present you a number of texts, showing the 
promises, blessings, and the virtue of the Christian's faith 
in the Son of God. 

Jesus said, Matt, xvi, 15, " Whom say ye that I am ?" 

Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God !" 

Jesus replied, " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for 
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee ; but my 
Father which is in heaven." 

But no blessing is pronounced for believing the 
Trinity ! 

John xx, 30. " Many other signs truly did Jesus in 
the presence of his disciples, which are not written in 
this book ; but these are written, that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that be- 
lieving ye might have life in his name." But no books 
are written that we might believe the Trinity. 

The Eunuch inquired, Acts viii, 36, "What doth 
hinder me to be baptized ?" 

Philip said, " If thou belie vest with all thy heart, 
thou mayest." 

The Eunuch replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God ; and he baptized him." But no one was 
baptized on the profession of faith in the Trinity. 

Acts ix, 20. 'Paul preached Christ in the synagogues, 
that he is the Son of God. But no one preached the 
Trinity in those days. 

1 John iv, 15. "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus 
is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." 
But there is no promise for confessing the Trinity. 

1 John v, 4. " This is the victory that overcometh 
the world, even our faith : who is he that overcometh 
the world ; but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 153 

of God." But there is no promise for believing the 
Trinity. 

1 John v, 9. " If we receive the witness of men, the 
witness of God is greater : for this is the witness of God 
which he hath testified of his Son." But God never 
bears witness to the Trinity. 

1 John v, 10. " He that believeth in the Son of God 
hath the witness in himself." But he that believeth the 
Trinity must look to his creed. 

1 John v, 10. " He that believeth not God hath 
made him a liar: because he believeth not the record 
that God gave of his Son." But no person is thus de- 
nounced for disbelieving the Trinity. 

1 John v, 11. "God hath given us eternal life ; and 
this life is in his Son." But the Bible never says that 
it is in the Trinity. 

1 John v, 12. " He that hath the Son hath life." 
But it is nowhere said, that he that hath the Trinity hath 
life. 

1 John v, 12. " He that hath not the Son hath not 
life." But it is nowhere said, that he that hath not the 
Trinity hath not life. 

1 John v, 13. " These things have I written unto you 
that believe on the name of the Son of God." But no- 
thing is written to them that believe the Trinity. 

1 John v, 13. "That ye may know that ye have 
eternal life." But nowhere does it say, that he that 
believeth the Trinity hath eternal life. 

1 John v, 13. ""And that ye may believe on the 
name of the Son of God." But nowhere does he write, 
that we may believe the Trinity. 

1 John ii, 33. "Whoever denieth the Son, the same 
hath not the Father." But there is no such danger in 
denying the Trinity. 

1 John ii, 23. "He that acknowledgeth the Son, 
hath the Father also." So that Christians have both ; 
but they who deny the Son have neither. 

1 John iii, 23. " This is His commandment, that we 



164 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." 
But there is no commandment to believe the Trinity. 

2 Peter i 5 17. God said^ " This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased." But he never said, this is 
myself in whom I am well pleased. 

O, that Trinitarians would believe the truth, that they 
might claim these blessings. 

Here is the highest authority to prove that the Trinity 
is not a fundamental doctrine of the Bible, but is a con- 
clusion to which some have come from premises growing 
out of other things. Says Neander : 

"We now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken 
in its connection with the proper and fundamental essence 
of Christianity, or with the doctrine of redemption, finds 
its ultimate completion, the doctrine of the Trinity. 
This doctrine does not strictly belong to the fundamental 
articles of the Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evi- 
dent from the fact, that it is expressly held forth in no 
one particular passage of the New Testament ; for the 
only one in which this is done, the passage relating to 
the three that bear record, John i, 5, is undoubtedly spu- 
rious, and in its ungenuine shape testifies to the fact, how 
foreign such a collocation is from the style of the New 
Testament scriptures. We find in the New Testament 
no other fundamental argument beside that of which the 
Apostle Paul says, that other foundation can no man lay, 
than that is laid — the annunciation of Jesus as the Mes- 
siah ; and Christ himself designates, as the foundation 
of his religion, faith in the only true God, and in Jesus 
Christ whom he hath sent. John xvii, 3. What Paul 
styles distinctively the mystery, relates, in no one in- 
stance, to what belongs to the hidden depths of the Divine 
Essence, but to the divine purpose of salvation, which 
found its accomplishment in a fact." Neander, i, 572. 

It is professedly made up of a text here and a text 
there — one taken from one place and one from another ; 
and not one of them saying anything about it. If the 
doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible, let my brother 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 155 

find it there and show it to us, and the controversy will 
be ended. I want you especially to mark the course of 
my brother in defending his Articles of Religion. 

He says that God has a body, and consequently, Art. 
1st, which says He has not a body, is not true. All the 
while that he is speaking in defense of his creed, he is 
giving up first one part and then another. Why does 
he not renounce it altogether, and take the Apostolic 
creed, the Bible ? 

But his views on the Son of God are very question- 
able. O, deny not the Son of God, my brother ! We 
need that precious Mediator — we need that person who 
came out from God, and went back to God, to stand 
between God and man as our mediator — as a medium 
between the Great Creator, the Eternal One, and the 
creature, poor, finite man. We need that one who, 
when no man was found able to open the book, came 
and took it out of the right hand of him that sat on the 
throne; who, when dying, said, Father, forgive them, 
they know not what they do ! His system unites God 
and man, very God and very man, without medium or 
mediator ; and the Son of God is lost sight of. 

I will now present my brother with some reasons for 
rejecting the Trinity : 

1. It pretends to understand God better than the 
Bible. 

2. It requires more than God requires. 

3. It gives God an anti-Bible name. 

4. It divides the supreme Being or Essence. 

5. It makes one part of God inferior to another. 

6. It numbers the persons or parts of God and their 
relative dignity. 

7. It gives one part of God properties which the 
others do not possess. 

8. It makes God to be three persons, whereas the Bible 
says " God is one." 

9. It makes Christ two persons, one very God and the 
other very man, with two spirits, two natures, two minds. 



156 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

10. It ascribes all the merits and sufferings of Christ 
to human nature. 

11. It makes the man, Christ Jesus, very man, like 
the lowest Unitarians. 

12. It has no Mediator between God and men, but a 
man, like the lowest Unitarians. 

13. It has no sacrifice but a man, like the lowest Unita- 
rians. 

14. It worships only part of Christ, and makes it 
idolatry to worship all of Christ. 

15. It makes it idolatry to worship the man Jesus. 

16. It makes it idolatry to worship the Lamb that was 
slain, whom angels worship. 

17. It makes no difference between truth and error, 
but sanctifies the grossest contradictions. 

18. It destroys the doctrine of a Son of God. 

19. It is repugnant to Christianity in giving God an 
equal. 

20. Its names and phrases, by which it worships God, 
differ from those used by angels, prophets, the Son of 
God, or the apostles: instance Trinity, Triune, Holy 
Trinity, Three One, Jehovah-Jesus, God Man, second 
person in the Trinity, Holy Three, God the Son, God the 
Holy Ghost, two Natures, Human Nature of Jesus. 

21. It makes two Jesuses, one a God who did not 
suffer for us, did not bleed for us, did not pray for us, 
was not seen, is not our mediator, is not our sacrifice, 
did not die for us, did not redeem us, nor rise for us, nor 
plead for us — and him they worship ; while the other 
Jesus, that they say is very man, suffered for us, bled for 
us, bought us, prayed for us, was seen by us, is our Me- 
diator, our sacrifice, died for us, rose for us, pleads for 
us, was wounded for us, and redeemed us — him they will 
not worship, and condemn us as idolaters for worshiping 
the Son of God. 

Oh, my brother, this doctrine of the Son of God is a 
glorious and blessed doctrine. Do not use your talents 
and power against it, for you cannot overthrow it. It is 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 157 

the rock upon which the Church is founded. It stands, 
and must for ever stand. 

Mr. Flood's Tenth reply : 

I am much pleased with the improvement in the spirit 
manifested by my brother. No chastisement for the pre- 
sent is joyous, but rather grievous ; but afterward it may 
yield positive fruits of righteousness to them that are 
exercised thereby. The brother starts out by quoting 
Clarke, and says that Clarke quotes a heathen author to 
prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Clarke, in his Notes 
on 1 John, shows how this word was in use among 
some ancient heathens before the time of Christ. My 
friend says Clarke was pressed to this of necessity. 
Whoever will turn their- attention to the use he makes 
of it, will see the justice my brother has done the au- 
thor. He wishes to know, if human nature is in the 
person of Jesus Christ. It is strange my brother will 
not comprehend my explanation on this subject. I en- 
deavored, in a previous explanation, to show him that 
Jesus Christ was God and man, in one person, and of 
Christ that human nature was identified with divine na- 
ture, in the person of Jesus Christ. Then he asks the ques- 
tion, if in worshiping Jesus Christ we do not worship the 
humanity ? In connection with this, he also asserts that 
we have no mediator between God and man. Now, it 
was for this very purpose that he took upon him human 
nature, that he might be a mediator, that he might be 
united with the offended and the offending. That he 
should be united with God, it was necessary he should 
possess divinity, having all the attributes and perfections 
of divine nature ; and hence he is one with the Father, 
in substance, power, glory, and eternity ; hence we wor- 
ship Jesus Christ, and worship him as God ; we ap- 
proach him as the medium, and worship him as the 
Mediator — "No man cometh unto the Father but by 
me," and this, I suppose, in the character of mediator. 
Whenever this reference is made, he is spoken of in 



158 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

reference to his office as mediator in the everlasting 
covenant, and becomes a mediator amply suited to meet 
all the necessities of the case, both with reference to the 
claims of God and the obligations of humanity. But 
he states, on what authority I should like to know, that 
I deny the Son of God was eternal. Now, I shall be 
glad if my brother will point out the place, in the re- 
porter's notes, where I have denied the eternity of the 
Son of God ; that the Son of God is an eternal being as 
God ; that he must be so, but is only designated as the 
Son, in connection with his being begotten ; this is the 
only point of difference. I hold, with Watson, that the 
Son of God is eternal in his divine nature, but was 
known in his divine nature prior to his being begotten 
of the Father, as the Word, or Logos ; hence I do not 
use the phrase, eternal Son of God ; but nevertheless, I 
say that he who is the Son of God is an eternal being. 
Any casual observer will see the point of difference: 
Christ, in his divine nature, is eternal ; he existed before 
all time, and prior to the birth of any beings, angelic or 
human. This is implied in his language : " Before 
Abram was I am." He was designated as the Word, or 
Logos, which was with the Father, which became Flesh, 
and is therefore properly designated the Son of God, in 
the sense in which no angelic or human nature can be 
called Son of God. The brother desired to have five 
days' discussion on this proposition. I should have been 
satisfied with less, and had he not repeated things of this 
kind, he could have delivered himself of more matter than 
he could in a month to come, if he acts upon the prin- 
ciple that seems to have guided him hitherto. And he 
quotes again, that " God, the mighty Maker, died." I 
hope he will not think it hard if I refer him to the forty- 
four stanzas repeating the same language in each. I 
will now reply to his statement, that I have asserted that 
God had no body, and then that he had ; that the hu- 
manity and divine nature, says the Constitution, were 
never separated, and that I say, they were. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 159 

With regard to the separation of the humanity and 
Divinity, the article must be understood to assert, that 
no permanent separation would have taken place, and 
appeared wholly based between the resurrection and 
ascension, which, if not alluded to in the article, is uni- 
versally believed. It was no permanent separation ; but 
a very brief one, for the purpose of accomplishing the 
work of redemption. As regards God having a body, 
he possesses no corporal body, as the essential God. 
But when he connected humanity with the Divine nature, 
it was in a mysterious manner, that was non-essential to 
his being as God, but essential to his effecting man's 
redemption. I am well aware of the meaning of this 
war of words, and can not but regret its necessity ; but 
my friend must not expect, by any play of words, to get 
rid of the real question at issue. He goes on and quotes 
a number of passages, to show that Jesus Christ could 
not have been one with the Father ; that God could not 
be the sender and the sent, the begetter and the begotten ; 
that he prays to his Divine nature ; that he goes back to 
himself, stands at his own right hand, &c. Now I shall 
be glad if my brother will give us to understand what he 
means by some of these phrases ; for instance, Jesus sat 
at the right hand of the Father. Are we to understand 
that God has a physical right hand, and that he occupies 
a place somewhere in the universe, as a great God, and 
that Jesus Christ is placed at the right hand of the great 
Sovereign of the universe ? This language, I conceive, 
is employed in the Scriptures, in reference to the connec- 
tion subsisting between the Divinity and humanity. I 
can not possibly conceive an infinite, incomprehensible 
Jehovah, who exists from all eternity, absolutely inde- 
pendent, who fills universal space, whose person is even- 
where, that he can have any required position, and that 
at his right hand, in the sense my brother supposes, is 
Christ, as a being of inferior and delegated authority. 
Now Stephen speaks of Jesus, as beholding him in this 
position ; but until the brother explains what he under- 



160 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

stands by this, I will wave my answer, at least for the 
present. I will give it at its appropriate time, but I want 
my brother to be a little definite, and state what he thinks 
it means. He states that we do not believe in the 
equality of the Son with the Father — that Jesus Christ 
is one with God. Now he must conceive that his oppo- 
nent, and Trinitarians generally, are the most dishonest 
set of men that can possibly exist, if they preach these 
articles of belief — proclaim them broadcast to the world — 
invite every quarter of the globe to embrace this true 
essential equality of the Father with the Son, at the same 
time they do not believe it themselves. Now if you can 
reconcile these contradictions, I leave you to do it, my 
brother, as a compliment to this audience, upon their 
intelligence. I hope the audience will not receive many 
assertions that have been presented by my opponent. I 
am happy to be able to compliment this audience, on the 
patience and intelligence they have throughout mani- 
fested, and am quite willing to leave it to their discrimi- 
nation, as to what is most worthy of their belief. I came 
here with the full expectation, that a certain class of 
minds would be fixed beforehand, in favor of their belief, 
and would not be likely to be moved therefrom ; nor 
had I any great hopes of making a convert of my brother. 
But at the same time, I had hope in the conviction, that 
truth is mighty and will prevail, and that this endless 
clashing of words may find, at least, some means of set- 
tlement and adjustment, by which religionists of all 
parties may be united. If I can assist in the accomplish- 
ment of this, I shall have done something for the interests 
of my fellow-men. He triumphantly asks me to point out 
the word Trinity, in the Bible. I stated the word Trinity 
is not a Scriptural phrase ; that I had no tenacity for it, 
simply as a word ; that I do not use it as a name for 
Jehovah. We can not name Jehovah. There is perhaps 
no word, that fully expresses all the essential character- 
istics of the divine Being. But we use the term Trinity, 
as a convenient phrase to illustrate the great Scripture 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 161 

doctrine, which we find on record in the Bible ; that in 
the unity of the Godhead there are three persons — Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost — constituting the one living and 
true God, the God of creation, the God of salvation, and 
the God of redemption.- Hence, as we have but this one 
living and true God, we use this term as significant of 
our understanding of it. He asserts, again, that his 
opponent is renouncing his creed. I suppose he alludes 
to the proposition under discussion. I have informed 
him, again and again, that I believe that the proposition 
under discussion, presents the truth on this particular 
point, I have been laboring to sustain. When he tells 
his audience that his opponent sometimes says one thing, 
and sometimes another, I appeal to my audience, if there 
has not been an honest desire manifested for the truth, 
notwithstanding any circumstances that might appear. 
He gives me credit for wit. I am glad to notice this 
improvement on the spirit of his former speech. If I 
succeed in accomplishing anything, it is not owing, 
perhaps, to any particular capacity that I possess, but 
owing to the readiness of the material ; he allows, how- 
ever, that if the doctrine I defend was capable of being 
sustained, that his brother is capable of doing it. In a 
former speech, he compared me to an apprentice boy ; 
now, he fancies there is something in me, and that 
I am capable of sustaining an argument, if it is ca- 
pable of being sustained. He says we are safe, if we 
have the Son of God dwelling in us. This is the very 
doctrine we teach ; for we assume that the Son of God is 
God, and the Son of God possesses all the essential 
attributes of the Divine mind, and hence, he says, Rev. 
iii, 20, " Behold I stand at the door and knock ; if any 
man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come into 
him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Again, 
he promises that he will come, and bring his Father 
with him, and make his abode with them : " He that 
hath the Son hath the Father ;" this is the point alluded 
to in his address to Philip ; and hence he promises to 
14 



162 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

come in and sup with the believers, and having this 
communion with Christ, we have fellowship with the 
Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. I assume the 
essential presence of Jesus Christ everywhere. He 
hath promised believers, that where two or three are 
gathered together, he will be in the midst of them. My 
brother will have to explain, if Jesus Christ is not om- 
nipotent, how it is, if every human being in the universe 
were to open their hearts, how Christ would be able to 
enter. It does not say that any man, in any one place, 
nor a thousand places ; but says to any man, in Europe, 
Asia, Africa, or America. My brother assumes that he 
may be in many places, but not in all. With respect to 
a personal Devil, I will not deny Satan, for his gratifica- 
tion, for the present time. I hold that Satan, or the old 
Devil, goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he 
might devour. Now roaring lions are not found in but 
one place at the same time ; but that Satan, and the 
wicked spirits of wicked men, may be exerting an evil 
influence in connection with the chief evil spirit, I will 
not question this latter position ; but the presence of 
Satan in more places than one, at the same time, is a 
strange theology, and I will not give it a place in my 
creed. But Christ can be in more places than one, at the 
same time — he may pervade the universe; be in heaven, 
and on every part of the earth, at the same time. The 
Son of man says, " he which is in heaven." Now, here 
in this allusion, he claims for himself to have presence, 
in some sense, in heaven, at the same time that he was 
upon the earth ; therefore I assume, that wherever two 
or more are gathered together, in his name, he is with 
them to bless them. " If any man open, I will come in ; " 
and hence, his vision and knowledge must take cogni- 
zance of all things transpiring upon this earth ; he must 
be omniscient as well as omnipresent, for his knowledge 
must take cognizance of all his creatures ; hence, if two 
or three agree upon the same thing, or a thousand differ- 
ent things, all of which may be asked in his name, he is 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 163 

able to give attention to the demands of all, of high or 
of low, of rich or of poor, of great and of small, the 
learned and the ignorant, the wise and the simple, and 
all to trust in him, as their redeeming God, may have 
confidence in his being able to take cognizance of their 
wants, the propriety or impropriety of their wants, and 
as Almighty, he is able to supply them ; and he assures 
them that he will do it. These are a few of the collat- 
eral evidences, which are presented in the Word of God, 
on the essential perfections of Jesus Christ, as God. 

Mr. Stjmmerbell's Eleventh address : 

My friends, it has been asked by some, why it is that 
I am on the affirmative, of a negative proposition ? The 
only reason I can give is, that, after my coming here, this 
was the only way in which my brother would agree to 
discuss the subject. He now wants to know what / be- 
lieve. My faith is not the subject in discussion, nor am 
I bound to present my doctrine. The question is simply 
whether the Methodist doctrine is true. If my brother 
wishes a debate on our doctrine, after we close the present 
discussion, I shall be very willing to accommodate him. 

My brother said, that I did not quote Clarke correctly. 
I ask him, then, to read the paragraph himself, and show 
wherein I was incorrect. The difficulty of my brother's 
worship is still unexplained. I wanted to know whether 
he worships all of his God, creature, and creator ? body 
and spirit ? human and divine ? or only part ? He 
acknowledges that his God now has a body — the body 
of a very man — a creature. If, then, he worships all of 
his God, he worships a creature, according to his own 
theory. True, his creed says, that God has no body, but 
he has given that up. He says that he worships Christ 
as God, but that does not help the difficulty, his Christ is 
part man and part God ; so if he worships all of his 
Christ as God, then he worships man, a creature, as God. 
Come, my brother, explain this to us. I want him to 
tell us if he rejects from his worship God's body, and 



164 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

that part of his Christ that suffered for him, was crucified 
for him, died for him, and redeemed him ? He says that 
Christ, human and divine, God and man, was but one 
person. If so, and he worships all that person, then he 
worships a creature. But, the other day he said that the 
person begotten, was not the person that was with God 
in the beginning. He attempted to show that he had a 
mediator between God and man ; but in this he utterly 
failed. He has a God-man ; but can he find a mediator 
between ? Now, if God is the mediator, he can not be 
a mediator between God and men — for he is God him- 
self, one of the parties ; and if he takes the other horn 
of the dilemma and says that man is the mediator, that 
will not do, for man can not be a mediator between God 
and man, since he is man — one of the parties. It will not 
do, brother ; he must show us a mediator between God 
and man, or acknowledge that he has none. Let us 
read Clarke again, Luke i, 35 : — 

"That human nature should be called the Son of the 
most high God. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his 
divine nature, then he can not be eternal ; for son im- 
plies a father, and father implies, in reference to son, pre- 
cedency in time, if not in nature too. The phrase, Eter- 
nal Son, is a positive self-contradiction." Did I not tell 
you that Clarke made the Father to be above the Son, 
and superior to him ? but my brother denied it. Prece- 
dency in time, if not in nature, says Clarke. That the 
divine nature was equal with the Father will not explain 
this; for Clarke says that "the angel does not give the 
appellation of Son of God to the divine nature." Luke 
i, 35 ; and that he knows of "no Scripture, fairly inter- 
preted, that states the divine nature to be begotten of 
God, or to be the Son of God." My brother exchanges 
the Son of God, in his creed and in his doctrine, for the 
Logos ; but that will not do. We want to know if he 
believes in the Son of God ? 

He admits now that the two natures were divided three 
days and three nights. Yet the creed says, never to be 






DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 165 

divided ; but that is also given up now. But if the two 
natures were divided three days and three nights, con- 
trary to his creed, how does he know that they never will 
be divided again ? The question is, Whether his creed 
(or Constitution and Discipline, and articles of religion,) 
be true or false ? It says that God has no body. My 
brother gives up that God now, has a body. It says that 
the two natures of Christ were never to be divided. My 
brother now, gives up that they were divided three days 
and three nights. Well, if God has a body, as my 
brother says, then his creed is false. Again ; if the two 
natures were divided, as my brother says, then his creed 
(Constitution and Discipline) is false. That they deny the 
equality of the Son with the Father is evident, for they 
say that the Son is very man — human nature — that eter- 
nal Son is not correct. They make the Son die to recon- 
cile his Father to us. This is not making them equal. 
They say that the Son is a mediator between God and 
us — not between God and man, for the Son is man, they 
say. This, then, does not make them equal. They 
make the Son a sacrifice — to die for us — to pay the 
debt. This does not make them equal. Clarke says, 
that "although Christ is of the same essence of the 
Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father, as 
the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is 
distinct from the sun itself." Heb. i, 3. Now, if they 
did not believe that the Son is inferior to the Father, 
could they use this comparison ? For the splendor of 
the sun is dependent, for its existence, upon the sun from 
which it emanates. My brother, after asserting that two 
infinites could not exist, or inhabit the same space, has 
not explained to us how three infinite persons can exist 
in the same space. Let him not forget this. Neither 
has he told us how two persons in the Trinity could give 
all their power over to a third, and not cease to exist ; 
though, after saying that if God did give all power in 
heaven and earth to Christ, that God must cease to exist; 
he did say that both the Father and the Holy Ghost gave 
all power to the Son. Explain brother ! My brother 



166 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

threatens to " take off his gloves," and take hold of the 
subject in earnest. He says that he will " open the flood- 
gates upon me." Well I do sincerely hope that he will. 
Come on, brother, take off your gloves. I only wish 
that he could have been induced to have opened his 
flood-gates before. He expresses a great deal of anxiety 
to know what I believe. Very well. I believe that there 
is one true and living God, and one Son of God, as set 
forth in the Bible. But my brother can not see into this; 
his creed can not be reconciled to it, and he must defend 
his creed. But he has already denied about one-half of 
it, yet he thinks that it must be true. I hope that before 
the debate closes he will think differently. 

He traces the Trinity back to the fourth century. I want 
him to account for the fact that there is no Trinity in the 
Bible — no Trinity in any of the writings of the early 
fathers — no Trinity in the Apostle's creed — no Trinity in 
the Nicene creed ? Why were there no Trinitarian his- 
torians until after the fourth century ? Why was it that 
the barbarous nations which I have mentioned, although 
Christian, yet rejected the doctrine of the Trinity ? How 
was it that the Roman soldiers marched through their 
countries with fire and sword, subduing them to the Trin- 
ity ? These were the means made use of, save that where 
they invaded the Roman empire, and mingling with the 
Roman population, finally imbibed the doctrines taught 
by the Roman church. I want my brother to account 
for these things, and not pass them by, merely saying 
that there is no argument in them. If he renounces the 
word Trinity, why does he not put it out of his creed ? 
Why not ? He says that it is unessential, and admits 
that it is not found in the Bible ! Yet the unity of the 
Godhead, he says, " consists of three persons." I deny 
it. I ask for the chapter and verse where it is recorded. 
If it is thus recorded, I must receive it. But it is not. 
I have high Trinitarian authority which says, that the 
Trinity is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. If 
it is not, and is without authority, how can my brother 
receive it as Christian doctrine ? 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 16T 

I will now read a few sentences, showing the contra- 
dictions in my brother's theory. According to Trinita- 
rianism: 

Jesus is very God, and very man. 

The invisible God ; but was often seen. 

The immortal God ; but he died. 

Omnipotent God ; but an angel strengthened him. 

Omniscient God ; but knew not the day or the hour. 

Equal with God ; and is the same God he is equal 
with. 

Is the Son of God ; and the God that he is the Son of. 

He is equal with the Father, and is the Father. 

He is the Son ; but is as eternal as his Father. 

Is as great as his Father ; and his Father is greater 
than he. 

Is the only begotten Son ; and is the unbegotten God. 

Is the only true God : and is the Son of the only true 
God. 

Is the self-existent God ; and the Son of the self-ex- 
istent God. 

Always had all power ; but received all power of his 
Father. 

Has a Father ; and is that God who has no Father. 

Divinity and humanity united never to be divided ; 
but the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross. 

Cannot be divided ; but one was dead, the other living. 

He came out from God ; but is the God he came out 
from. 

He prayed to God ; but was the God he prayed to. 

He is the God who gave his Son ; and is the Son 
given. 

He said, Father, I thank thee ; and was the Father. 

He is the only wise God ; and the Son of the only 
wise God. 

He is the mediator between God and men ; and is the 
God with whom he pleads. 

He is the God that has no body; but took again his 
body. 



168 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

He is the God that no man hath seen ; but was often 
seen. 

Is the God that has no parts ; yet has both body and 
parts. 

He is the unchangeable God ; but became man. 

He is self-existent ; but has a Father. 

He is eternal ; but was begotten before all worlds. 

He is but one person ; but is the God that is three 
persons. 

God says, that Jesus is his Son ; but he is God him- 
self. 

The Bible says, that God is not a man ; but he is the 
man Christ Jesus. 

Brethren, shall we cease to be men, and believe all 
these contradictions ? 

He says that he will attend to my arguments at some 
future time ; why not now ? Now is the time, instead of 
flying off into irrelevant matter, and altogether neglect- 
ing my principal arguments, as well as the numerous 
passages of Scripture, disproving the Trinity. He quotes 
that "The Devil goes about as a roaring lion,"&c., to 
prove that he cannot be present in more than one place 
at a time. Very well ! Let us see how this will work. 
Allowing eight hundred millions to be an average num-* 
ber of the human family, and thirty-three years to be a gen- 
eration, and that the adversary spends one hour only with 
one man, and in thirty-three years we will have over 
seven hundred and ninety-nine millions, whom he has 
not visited ; and reckoning from the creation on the same 
calculation, and we find that he could not have been 
present with more than three out of a hundred of the 
human family. But he says there are others. If there 
were seventy-eight thousand of these " little old scratches," 
they could not have called on all the human family, by 
several thousand. Such is a specimen of the effects of 
my brother's defining spirits. I tell you it would be a 
great relief to my brother's system, if he could prove 
that there is no other adversary than such a one as that. 



DISCUSSION" ON THE TRINITY. 169 

Passing on now, I will read Dr. Clarke, on the only text 
which professedly sustains the doctrine of the Trinity. 
I want to show you, that they do not believe that it is 
Scripture, if Clarke is to be believed. 

John v, 7, "There are three that bear record in hea- 
ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and 
these three are one." 

Clarke, after writing several pages to prove this text a 
forgery, sums up as follows : 

i. " One hundred and thirteen Greek MSS. are extant, 
containing the First Epistle of John, and the text in 
question is wanting in one hundred and twelve. 

2. "All the Greek Fathers omit the verse, though 
many of them quote both the sixth and the eighth verse, 
applying them to the Trinity, and divinity of Christ, and 
the Holy Spirit : yea, and endeavor to prove the Trinity 
from verses six and eight, without referring to any such 
verse as the seventh ; which, had it existed, would have 
been a more positive proof, and one that could not have 
been overlooked. 

3. "The first place where the verse appears in Greek, 
is in the translation of the Acts of the council of Lateran, 
held, A. D., 1215. 

4. " Though it is found in many Latin copies, yet it 
does not appear that any, written previously to the tenth 
century, contain it. 

5. " The Latin Fathers do not quote it, even where it 
would have greatly strengthened their arguments, and 
where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally 
expected. 

6. " Yigilius, bishop of Topsum, at the conclusion of 
the fifth centurv, is the first who seems to have referred 
expressly to the three heavenly witnesses. But his quo- 
tation does not agree with the present text, either in words 
or in sense ; and beside, he is a writer of very little cre- 
dit, nor does the place alleged, appear to learned men to 
be genuine. 

7. " The Latin writers who do refer to the three heav- 

15 



170 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

enly witnesses, vary greatly in their quotations, &c, very 
many omitting the clause, ' these three are one,' &c. 

8. " It is wanting in all the ancient versions, the Vul 
gate excepted ; but the more ancient copies of this, have 
it not, &c. 

9. "It is wanting in the first edition of Erasmus, 
A. D., 1516, &c. 

10. " It is wanting in the German translation of Lu- 
ther, and in all the editions of it published during his 
lifetime. 

11. " It is inserted in our early English translations, 
but with marks of doubtfulness, as has already been 
shown. 

12. " In short, it stands on no authority, sufficient to 
authenticate any part of a revelation, professing to have 
come from God," &c, &c, &c. 

Thus, according to their own showing, this text is a 
forgery, and was put in to sustain the doctrine of the 
Trinity. But how can we rely upon a doctrine which is 
sustained, only, by forged passages of Scripture ? Mr. 
Barnes, the very able Presbyterian commentator, also 
rejects the above text. 

My brother thinks, that when the Son of man is spoken 
of, it refers to the humanity ; but is my brother prepared to 
admit that the humanity was omnipresent ? yet it was 
while on earth, that Jesus said, " Even the Son of man, 
which is in heaven;" and they think that this proves om- 
nipresence. The Christians believe, that the Son of man 
is the Son of the living God, (Matt, xvi,) ; that the child 
born, was Christ the Lord, and that the second man is 
the Lord from heaven. If my brother could only believe 
this, it would be a great improvement in his system ; he 
could find in the Son of God, a medium between God 
and men, which he can never find in his "very man" 
system. 

I now design giving you some account of the rise of 
the Trinity, and evidence that the early Christians were 
not Trinitarians. It is given up, by the best historians 



DISCUSSION ON TIIE TRINITY. 171 

and commentators, that the early Christians held to the 
subordination of the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father ; 
that is, denied the equality. Neancler states that this was 
the doctrine of the anti-Nicene church. See Yol. i, p. 
607 ; Vol. ii, pp. 361, 363, 364, 365, and 424, where he 
shows that the Trinity was not equality, but a threefold 
gradation, and calls it the subordination theory. So Mr. 
Barnes, finding that the Nieene creed makes Christ not a 
self-existent, but a derived God, repudiates its doctrine ; 
and consequently, rejects the Nicene fathers as not sound 
Trinitarians. Hawies, condemns Justin Martyr, saying, 
" An Arian might subscribe his confession, " i, 169 ; and 
condemns those early Christians as Arians, long before 
Arius lived ; see p. 199 ; and thinks Justin, Origen, Ter- 
tullian, Pantaneus, and many others, taught Arianism in 
the second century ; p. 164. Not a sign of the Trinity 
is found in any of the early fathers, neither were the 
dominant party Arians — the Arians had but seventeen 
bishops at the council of Nice — but although the Trinity 
does not belong to the fundamental articles of -the Chris- 
tian faith ; yet it constituted, from the beginning, the 
fundamental consciousness of the Catholic church. — 
Nean. i, 572, 573. 

If my brother can quote any historian, before the 
fourth century, in favor of any Trinitarian creed, I want 
him to do it before this congregation. Why were there 
no Trinitarians, kings, bishops, nobles, or priests % These 
are things which I want my brother to clear up. If the 
early Church were Trinitarian, history would so record 
it ; while, if history does not so record it, he must admit 
that it was not so. But, though the Trinity is of ancient 
date among the heathen, as proved by Clarke, the word 
was first found among Christians in the latter part of the 
second century. The Nicene creed first called Christ a 
derived God in A. D. 325. The Trinity received its 
finishing touch, as its friends say, in 381. Mosh.i, 128. 
The human soul in Christ was first mentioned in the 
third century. And the procession of the Holy Ghost 



172 DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 

was settled A. D. 653. Mosh. i, 225. The Athanasian 
creed was formed in the fifth century ; and the doctrine 
of two natures was not settled till 680. Gib. iii, 445 
and iv, 422. It is clear that the Greek father Origen 
was not a Trinitarian, for when accused of having a big 
God and a little one, he replied: " He who is God of 
himself is The God — for which reason Jesus calls him, 
John xvii, 3, ' The only true God. 5 " In the fourth cen- 
tury, orthodox historians state that there was not a Trini- 
tarian bishop of any note, except Athanasius, so that it 
was said, "Athanasius against all the world, and all the 
world against Athanasius," and he was an excommuni- 
cated bishop. The whole world during that period is 
called Arian. Such is the testimony of Hawies, Nean- 
der, and numbers of the best Trinitarian authors. Nean- 
der admits that our views were most popular down to the 
fifth century, and that they were upheld by the majority 
until the establishment of Popery. These are facts to 
be remembered. All the early councils were against 
the Trinity. In the fourth century, there were forty-five 
councils held, of which all but thirteen opposed the 
Trinity. The largest councils ever held in ancient times 
opposed it. 

Wadington says, that they believed the Son to be sub- 
ordinate, but not created : pp. 115-117. When Theo- 
dosius, the tyrant, was baptized in the Trinitarian faith, 
though the first emperor baptized in that faith, he was 
the tenth Christian emperor; and when he set about 
establishing the Trinity, one hundred congregations were 
expelled from their churches in Constantinople by the 
soldiers, in one day, to establish that creed. See Gib- 
bon iii, 75. At this time, every other government in 
the world was opposed to it. Clovis, of France, in the 
sixth century, was called the eldest son of the Church, 
because the first king to embrace that doctrine, though 
there had been Christian kings from the year 180. 

Those barbarous nations, so called, which included all 
nations outside of the Koman Empire, the English, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 178 

Germans, and all, rejected the Trinity ; yet they were 
Christian, had the Bible translated into their own lan- 
guage, and were renowned for their knowledge of the 
Scriptures, and urged the establishment of Bible schools 
among the Eomans. Neander ii, 150. When the Athana- 
sian creed was drawn up, it was in a dark and cruel age, 
and it begins with cursing and ends with cursing. The 
conversion of the nations to the Trinity, is called in the 
Book of Revelations, " giving their power to the Beast." 
The Bible is against the Trinity, for there is in it only 
one passage for it, and they acknowledge (pious souls) 
that they forged it. The early fathers are considered he- 
retical, as I have shown. Millions have been put to 
death to establish it, or for denying it. Jerome acknow- 
ledges that, in the fourth century, they had but one 
bishop. Now, I refer my brother to Mosheim, Neander, 
and other Trinitarian authors ; and I want him to ex- 
plain these objections to his system : How is it that the 
two oldest ecclesiastical historians are called Arian and 
Unitarian ? Where are the early Trinitarian historians ? 
I want him to account for the fact, that the first Trinita- 
rian creeds arose so long after the Apostles 5 creed. I 
want him to tell us, why all the nations which embraced 
Christianity before the fourth and fifth centuries, rejected 
the Trinity ? Why was it that these nations had to be 
converted to the Trinity, by Roman soldiers marching 
through their coasts with fire and sword ? If he re- 
nounces the word Trinity, he should take it out of his 
creed. If it is non-essential, why is it there ? I want 
him to account for these things, and not pass them by, 
by saying that there is no argument in them. 

Mr. Flood's Eleventh reply : 

I shall commence my reply, by noticing two passages 
of Scripture given to me by my brother, which I did not 
notice this morning. John vi, 38. " For I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 
him that sent me." I understand this to be strictly in 



174 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

accordance with the language of Christ, in the garden — 
" Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. 5 ' 
Whatever he had to endure, whatever he had to suffer, 
in order to accomplish his great work, I understand he 
came to submit to, however revolting it was to the feeble- 
ness of human nature. And then, in the most extreme 
case, with regard to the work he came to do, he says : 
u I came to do the will of him that sent me ;" showing 
that the human nature was subordinate to the divine. 
John xvii, 3. "And this is life eternal, that they might 
know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent." I have repeatedly asserted here, that 
there is but one living and true God ; and my brother 
would have me prove a proposition which he himself has 
furnished a thousand passages to prove — that God is 
one ; and this language is employed to express this great 
truth of the oneness of God ; and yet there is nothing 
contained in this passage which, in the slightest degree, 
disproves that in this one God there are not three dis- 
tinct persons composing this one living and true God. 
I now design, in the next place, to respond to my bro- 
ther's quotation, from which he has assumed that it is 
the united testimony of the fathers, that Socinianism, 
whether called Arianism or not, was received by the 
Church. I will give you a few quotations from th6 
fathers, to show you what were the sentiments of the 
Church before the introduction of Arianism in the fourth 
century. 

I quote first from Ignatius, who wrote at latest about 
the year 107. Gregory's Evidences, page 336. "Be 
not led aside by strange doctrines, nor by antiquated 
tales, which are unprofitable ; for if we yet live accord- 
ing to Judaism, it is equivalent to declaring that we 
have not accepted grace, for the most holy prophets 
lived according to Christ Jesus. And for that cause 
were they persecuted, being inspired by the grace of 
Christ, that the unbelievers might be convinced that 
there is one God, who hath manifested himself by his 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 175 

son Jesus Christ, who is his eternal Word." This looks 
very much like that the primitive Church equalized 
Jesus Christ, in his divine nature, with the Father. 

Justin Martyr has the following passage preferred by 
Dr. Grabe. " When man's nature had contracted cor- 
ruption, it was necessary that he who would save it, 
should do away the principle of corruption. But this 
could not be done, without uniting essential life with the 
nature so corrupted, to do away the corruption, and ever 
after to immortalize the corrupt nature. Wherefore it 
was meet that the Word should become incarnate, to 
deliver us from the death of natural corruption." 

Tertullian understood the phrase, Son of God, as ap- 
plied to Christ, to mean the same as God of God ; as is 
obvious from many parts of his writings. There is still 
extant a creed of his, which runs thus : "We believe in 
one God ;" but under this dispensation, which we call 
the economy, that the one God hath a Son, which is his 
Word, who proceeded from him, and by whom all things 
were made ; he was sent from the Father to the Yirgin, 
and was born of her both God and man — Son of man, 
and Son of God. Who afterward, according to his pro- 
mise, sent from the Father the Holy Ghost — the com- 
forter, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in 
the Father, the Son, and Holv Ghost. This is the rule 
which has come down to us from the beginning of the 
Gospel. And again, what is it .that the Gospel has 
done ? What is the substance of the New Testament, 
extending the law and the prophets as far as John ; if, 
from thence forward, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three 
persons, are not believed to make one God ? Origen, 
also, in his writings against Celsus, furnishes many as- 
sertions, which are unequivocal and decisive. Thus he 
affirms first,' that Christ was the uncreated Son of God ; 
secondly, that the Maker of the world is to be wor- 
shiped ; thirdly, that Christ is the maker of the world. He 
maintains a precise distinction between creatures and 
their creator ; and he brings them together into compa- 



176 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

rison as to the respect that is due to them. The term 
Trinity does not occur in this author ; but all that is es- 
sential to the doctrine of the Trinity, is most clearly stated. 
" This is the rule which has come down to us." — Gre- 
gory's Evidences, p. 338, &c. We now quote page 340. 
Novatian expresses himself as follows : "If no one 
can be saved by God the Father, who does not confess 
that Christ is God, in whom and by whom the Father 
promises to give salvation. Wherefore whosoever ac- 
knowledges him to be God, is in the way to be saved by 
Christ, who is God ; and whosoever does not acknow- 
ledge him to be God, forfeits salvation, because he can 
not otherwise have it^ than in Christ as God." 

Dionysius, bishop of Rome, after censuring Narcissus 5 
tritheistic doctrine as diabolical, says: "Nor are they 
less to blame who think the Son a creature, and who 
suppose the Lord to have come into being, as if he were 
one of the things that were really made." His cotempo- 
rary, Dionysius of Alexandria, (both flourished about A. 
D. 159,) expressed himself thus : " The Father being 
eternal, the Son must be eternal too. Light of Light. 
The names mentioned by me are undivided, and inse- 
parable ; when I named the Father before I mentioned 
the Son, I signified the Son in the Father. If any of my 
false accusers suspect that because I called God creator 
and former of all things, I made him creator of Christ, 
let him consider that I before styled him Father, and so 
the Son was included in him" The case of this Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria, evinces very plainly of what great 
moment the belief of Christ's divinity was reckoned in 
the third century. In controversy with the Sabellians, 
he expressed himself rather unwarily, and hence became 
suspected of leaning too far toward the opposite extreme, 
and of holding inadequate notions of the Deity of 
Christ. 

From these quotations, all of which relate to the ear- 
liest authors, I do not question that heresies existed 
among the pagans. My brother says when Constantine 



DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 177 

attempted to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity, many 
suffered death, rather than embrace it. These were the 
devotees of a false religion. And on the other hand, he 
supposes that because idolatrous nations resisted the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, therefore, the Trinity must be false ! 
Is not this a most beautiful argument ? This brother 
thought the discussion on this subject must continue for 
five or six days. I thought I could empty my barrel in 
three days, and it would have been vrey desirable, at this 
sickly season of the year, to have done so ; but I con- 
sented to follow in the train of this great luminary of the 
nineteenth century, and have acceded to his proposition. 
My brother refers to Clarke, and says I intimated that 
he did not quote the doctor correctly. My intimation 
was, that he did great injustice to the author. My ex- 
ception was not taken to the passage itself; but it was to 
the use which was sought to be made of it. My brother 
insisted that the doctor was pressed for support of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and was compelled to go to hea- 
then authors for confirmation. If he desires that this 
debate should go to the world in book form, I have 
nothing to hazard in my own mind against it ; but I do 
hope that my brother will relieve me from appearing in 
the position that his opponent had yielded a single point. 
I want the record to be made — to stand out in bold relief — 
that no one position of mine has, in the slightest degree, 
been negatived during this discussion, nor at any time 
been given up, nor apologized for. I have no apology to 
make for any position ; if the argument sustain it, I shall 
remain content, and I am certain that those who sympa- 
thize with my views will also. My brother asserts that we 
are baptizing in the name of the Word, or Logos, and not in 
the Word, or Son. Christ is properly known as begotten 
of the Father, under the name of the Son. There is but 
one person — the divine and the human natures united 
in Jesus Christ ; hence, it is very proper that we should 
not baptize in the name of any other, than in the name 
of the Son. Baptism, by it, is a Christian institution ; 



178 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

and it is proper that those introduced into the church of 
the living God, should receive the ordinance of baptism, 
in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And 
when they hear that solemn language announced, the 
very idea of the equality of the persons in whose name 
they are baptized, is impressed upon the mind. " I 
baptize thee, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost. 55 But my opponent says, that I have 
given up the doctrine contained in the creed, or consti- 
tution. It is an article expressive of the general view ; 
it does not say we believe so much, and no more, for we 
refer to the Word of God, as the only infallible autho- 
rity. It is an honest expose of the generally received 
view of the church. Every church has its views ; and 
my brother will find them strung up in a long book. 
He says that I admit God has a physical body ; I have 
stated from the first that Jesus Christ, that the Word, or 
Logos, had taken upon himself a human body, and that 
human body never was to be permanently separated, but 
to remain undivided to all eternity : this position was 
defined and explained this morning. My brother then 
refers to my remark of taking off' my gloves. I intimated 
that I wanted my brother to be close to me, so that I 
might finger him, (metaphysically,) and that he might 
feel me. As to lifting thejfo^-gates, he had better not 
be too critical ; the summer-bell would not jingle so plea- 
santly, if submerged. He refers again to what he sup- 
poses an orthodox admission ; in speaking of the lesser 
spirits, he calls them "little rascals;" whether it is a 
rich selection of language, I leave you to judge. Then 
he has been pleased to ascertain what number there may 
be afloat and abroad ! Surely, sir, you will grow inter- 
esting in all these speeches ; you become more and more 
fruitful in this style ! I merely assume that it was not 
found in my creed, that Satan was an omnipresent being. 
I believe he is a very vicious devil ; a very wicked 
devil ; and in some respects, a very foolish devil ; and 
as to hie being present in more than one place at a time, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 179 

I leave to my brother, who seems to think it may be so. I 
agree with Pope, " When men," &c. . 

Clarke rejected John v, 7. That it was only in one out 
of one hundred and thirteen translations. It is supposed 
by the author, that it might have been introduced by 
some of the councils. We have no evidence as to how 
it was introduced. I have not quoted it in this discus- 
sion, merely to give my brother no ground of quibble ; 
I have no evidence that it is not true, but I avoided any 
possible cause of collision, because I discover a tendency 
to make great matters of questions of this kind. He 
refers to the fact, that millions have suffered martyrdom 
for rejecting this doctrine — denying the Trinity. I sup- 
pose my brother is aware, that millions who have also 
suffered martyrdom, have believed the contrary. Among 
those that suffered persecution under Nero, many were 
Trinitarians, and embraced the doctrine of the sove- 
reignty of Jesus Christ, and the essential Deity of the 
Holy Spirit. The evidence of the truth of this doctrine, 
is not so full in the Old Testament scripture, but it is 
very clear from the New ; as we read in John i, " In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God." This is the Word that 
became Mediator, by taking upon himself flesh and 
dwelling among us. I shall now proceed to state, that 
my brother has been giving himself a great deal of con- 
cern about my not defending the Divinity of the Holy 
Spirit. I take it for granted that he does not believe in 
the divinity of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, he would not 
require me to defend it. It seems passing strange to my 
mind, that he should have forgotten that he, and not I, is 
in the affirmative on this question. If he should labor to 
make it appear that, according to the teaching of our 
book, this doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, I 
would certainly have tried to be with him on the subject. 
I remark that works are attributed to the Holy Spirit, 
that could be performed by God only. Gen. i, 2. 
" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 



180 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

waters." This has respect to the agency of the Spirit in 
connection with the creation. In Mat. xxviii, 19, we 
have the testimony first of the personality of the Holy 
Spirit, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." Now, if this language gives a person- 
ality to the Father, it also gives the same to the Son ; 
and if a personality to the Son, it also gives a personality 
to the Holy Spirit. Luke iii, 22. "And the Holy Ghost 
descended in a bodily shape like a dove, upon him, and 
a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my 
beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." This relates to 
the baptism of Christ by John, and the Holy Spirit is 
here personified. All the three persons are interested in 
this transaction ; Christ the Mediator, is about to receive 
the rite of baptism at the hand of John, and the Father 
is represented as expressing himself from heaven, while 
the Holy Spirit is in the form of a dove. A voice is 
heard, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased." Here, then, is evidence clear of the person- 
ality of the Floly Spirit. It is the effect of the office of 
the Spirit, that he should be separate and distinct, in the 
transaction, from the Father and the Son ; and it being 
distinct, was noticed in the bodily shape of a dove. It 
could have as well assumed any other appearance, but it 
was such as Divine Wisdom thought proper to make. 

Mr. Summerbell's Twelfth address : 

He says that the Holy Ghost, i. e., " God the Spirit," 
might as well have appeared in any other shape, as that 
of a dove ; but I answer, that it is as hard to believe that 
God was ever seen in a bodily shape like a dove, as any 
other shape, so long as we believe Jesus, that no man hath 
seen God at any time. 

Had he not better say, that it was a manifestation of 
the Spirit of God, i. e., of the Spiritual influence ? The 
other day, he introduced it as a pendulum suspended from 
the throne of God, and swinging through heaven, earth, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 181 

and hell. I do not see what my brother gains by making 
the Spirit of God a distinct person from the Father, and 
the Son — even the supreme God, and then " swinging it 
from beneath the throne ! " 

He thinks that Mat. xxviii, 19, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, proves the personality of the Holy Ghost. For, 
saj'S he, the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, 
and so the Holy Ghost must be a person ; but we might 
just as well say fire must be a person, for in Mat. iii, 11, 
it says, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and 
(with) fire." For if the Spirit is a person, because 
joined with the Father and Son in the one text, fire must 
be, because joined with the Holy Ghost in the other. 
But it will not do to manufacture a Trinity in this way. 
If it is not a Bible doctrine, better put it away ; and that 
it is not, is admitted by the most eminent authority 
among Trinitarian authors, w T hich says that it is not a 
fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 

My brother thinks that Gen. i, 3, proves the person- 
ality of the Holy Ghost. The generality of Trinitarian 
authors think differently, however. The- Bible says that 
it was the Spirit of God ; but God is not the Spirit of 
God, and I must believe the Word of God. Here my 
brother became quite merry — let that pass. But again, 
he seemed grieved at my calling the agents of the de- 
stroyer of souls, little rascals, and thinks that I am very 
hard-hearted. But I think that my heart is just as soft 
and gentle as my brother's, and I also think, that parents 
generally, would just as soon have me use the word 
rascals, before their children, as Devils. But he thinks 
that more is laid to the enemy of souls, than he is guilty 
of. I admit it, especially, if he is in but one place at 
a time. But that does not prove the doctrine of the 
Trinity. 

Then he threatened to take off his gloves ! Do, my 
brother, and take hold of the subject in earnest. Next 
he threatens to open the flood-gates upon me, and here 



182 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

he becomes decidedly funny. He thinks that the 
Summerbell would not jingle under water. Why, then, 
does he not put it under the water, and try it ? Why 
does he not bring on the flood, and put a stop to the 
jingling ? I am sure that this would please him very 
much. Come, brother, take off your gloves, and let 
down the flood. Don't keep telling us what you will do, 
but do it. He intimates that they do not use the word 
Logos in the baptism formula, because it is a Christian 
institution ! Strange idea ! ! 

I come now to notice his quotations from the fathers, 
with which a friend down below there, keeps him sup- 
plied. But still he goes to his own side for authority, 
and quotes from Gregory's sectarian work on the Trin- 
ity ; thus he constantly quotes ex parte testimony. Well, 
what do his fathers say ? The first he quotes, says that 
Christ was the eternal Word, just the Christian doctrine ; 
but says not one word about a Trinity. You should have 
found Trinity there, my brother. Next he quotes what 
Justin Martyr says, of the greatness of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. We contend for that greatness, but there is no 
Trinity in that. But Justin says, farther, that " Christ 
is different from the God who made all things by him, 
numerically different, but the same in will." Those 
fathers held, in the main, precisely the same views of 
Christ that we do ; and not one true Trinitarian can he 
find among them all. He finds some comfort in Tertul- 
lian, because Tertullian says " God of God." But my 
brother won't admit that, for it makes one God too 
many ; it makes two Gods, and yet proves no Trinity. 
They need three eternal persons ; not two Gods. 

Tertullian says, " God was not always a Father or a 
Judge, since he could not be a father before he had a Son, 
nor a judge before sin." Tertullian's faith will not do. 
Hawies, my brother's own authority, gives up Tertullian 
altogether, with Justin Martyr, Origen, and others. 
Thus my brother gets along poorly in quoting them as 
Trinitarian. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 183 

He next quotes Novatian as saying that God does not 
save any one, &c. Well, now, suppose that I admitted 
that God does not save any one, my brother would not. 
God does save us by his Son. I dispute that authority, 
although if I acknowledged it, it would prove of no avail 
to my brother. But there is no Trinity in that. Nova- 
tian's words are, " God the Father is alone without ori- 
gin ; when he himself pleased, the Word was born." 
The truth is, the ancient fathers did not hold to the Trin- 
ity, and my brother has been able to find no Trinity in 
them. 

He comments on my saying that the barbarous nations 
objected to the Trinity, and makes this an offset to finding 
the Trinity among the heathen, previous to its existence 
in the church. But my brother is mistaken about the 
meaning of the word barbarous here. The Greeks and 
Romans called all barbarous who did not speak their 
language. These were, many of them, German nations 
and Christians, to say the least, no more barbarous than 
the Romans. Ulphilus, the Goth, translated the Bible 
into their language ; they had Bible schools, and Jerome 
was surprised at their proficiency in quoting the original 
Hebrew. They held to the supremacy of the Father, but 
denied that the Son was a creature. (See Wad. 117, 165.) 
My brother made quite an argument here, excusing their 
going to the Chinese for the Trinity, by my saying that 
those barbarous nations rejected the Trinity ;< but I leave 
the audience to judge between us. He quotes John vi, 
38, " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will 
but the will of him that sent me." My brother wrestled 
with this text, but he failed to throw it. It has stood, 
and will stand for ever. This text teaches the subordina- 
tion of the " divine nature," for his "human nature" had 
not been in heaven. Who was it that came down from 
heaven, not to do his own will ? Who sent him ? Jesus 
says, that he came out from the Father — he came out 
from God — he was rich, and for our sakes became poor. 
Who was it, God or man ? humanity or divinity ? On 



184 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

John xvii, 3, " This is life eternal, that they might know 
thee the only true God," — he says, there is nothing in it. 
Does the personal pronoun THEE mean three persons or 
one ? It says that this THEE is the only true God. That 
is, only one person is God. I do insist on my brother's 
explaining these texts. Let him tell us how it is that his 
creed is not named in the Bible — that the Trinity is 
never named ? How it is that what we believe is stated 
so plain and so often, and yet we are wrong ? I will 
now direct your attention to further authorities on the 
fathers. I hold in my hand Hawies. He calls Origen 
the prolific father of heresy, and ranks him with Euse- 
bius as an Arian ; and says that Dr. Clarke is as much 
a blasphemer as Socinus. Hawies, Yol. i, 253. 

The doctrine that Christ had a human soul, was not 
held by the primitive church. They held that the Logos 
that was in the beginning with God, was the soul of the 
body. Neander i, 635, says, that " Tertullian was the first 
to express distinctly and clearly the doctrine that Christ 
possessed a purely human soul," and that this doctrine 
grew up in opposition to Docetism. P. 634, and Vol. i, 
593, say, that " the synod convened against Beryll, set- 
tled the doctrine concerning a human soul in Christ." 
The anti-Nicene church held that the Son of God was of 
the same essence as the Father, and distinguished be- 
tween the Son of God and all created beings, (Neander 
ii, 380,) but yet that he was subordinate to the Father. 
Origen says, " As the Son of God and the Holy Spirit 
are incomparably exalted above all other existences, so 
high, and even higher, is the Father exalted above them." 
Nean. ii, 590. I do not quote Origen, because J believe 
all that he says, but because my brother quoted him as a 
Trinitarian. The subordination of Christ to the Father 
is acknowledged by Neander, on pages 364, 365 ; and in 
Vol. i, 605, 607, &c, to have been the primitive faith. 

I have already read to you that those who held the 
Christian views, at the Nicene council, were the more 
" numerous and dominant party," called the " Old Church 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 185 

Party," which says Neander, held to the older system of 
subordination (ii, 424), and were called " peace-makers," 
who, though the majority were yet called the " Authors 
of Peace," who wished to settle the divinity of Christ in 
Scripture phraseology, (p. 374) and adhered tenaciously 
to simple Bible doctrine — teaching nothing which they . 
could not prove with the exactness of verbal testimony 
from the Bible (376), and how these were put down by 
the emperor. I will now turn again to a classification 
of the fathers, to see where they belong. Hawies says, 
i, 164, " Justin (Martyr), Origen, Tertullian, Pantaneus, 
and many others, zealous indeed," — " ready to die ;" yet 
holding a Christianity of so equivocal a nature as to ren- 
der it very dubious whether they had any real part or lot 
in the matter." " It must be acknowledged that there 
is scarce one of the fathers who hath not expressed him- 
self in terms so indistinct, or so improper," &c. P. 171. 
Hawies is high Trinitarian authority, but after condemn- 
ing the principal of the fathers, says, that scarcely one is 
right. Thus the highest Trinitarian authority acknowl- 
edges that the primitive church denied the equality of 
the Son with the Father, and repudiates the fathers. I 
could have wished to have read the words of some forty 
of the fathers, but will now proceed to the argument on 
Elohim. Their argument is, that Elohim is plural, 
viz: Elohim (the Gods). 

Elohim occurs, Gen. i, 1, Berasheeth hra Elohim, 
eth hashaumaim veeth haarets. In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth. On this they argue 
that as Elohim has the plural termination, it should be 
translated '' Gods." To which I reply : 

1st. That if Elohim be plural, it is a plurality of Oods^ 
rather than of persons ; three Gods in one person rather 
than three persons in one God, which, also, better agrees 
with their doctrine that two (beings) natures, very God 
and very man, constitute one person — one Christ. 

2d. The Septuagint version renders Elohim into the 
Greek, by Theos, God, in the singular number, and thus 
16 . 



186 DISCUSSION ON THE TBINITY. 

presents seventy-two Hebrew scholars against my bro- 
ther. They translated the Old Testament about 250 
years B. 0., and so could not have been prejudiced. 

3d. From the Septuagint version Jesus almost inva- 
riably quoted. (See Buck's Theo. Die.) Hence, Jesus 
is against my brother, and in favor of the singular form. 

4th. The Old Testament is often quoted by the inspired 
apostles, who always render Elohim, Hebrew, by Theos, 
Greek, in the singular. So that all the apostles are 
against the plurality of persons. 

5th. My brother's own creed is against him, saying 
positively that there is "but one God." 

6th. This translation would not make simply three, 
but at least four Gods ; for as the dual is the lowest form 
of the plural, so Psalm xlv, 7, quoted Heb. i, 8, God, even 
thy God, should be rendered " Gods, even thy Gods ;" 
which, in the dual form of the noun, would make four 
Gods, and in the triad form, six Gods. 

7th. Forty Trinitarian divines translated Elohim by 
the singular noun God, as it stands in our common Eng- 
lish Bibles. So that here we have forty Trinitarian 
Hebrew scholars against my brother. 

8th. Nobody believes in the doctrine claimed by the 
plural form, for immediately after translating it " Gods" 
they will say, " yet there is but one God." This my 
brother does, so that he is not even on his own side of 
the argument. 

9th. Professor Stuart, in his Heb. Grammar, p. 180, 
says, " For the sake of emphasis, the Hebrews employed 
most of the words which signify Lord, God, &c, in the 
plural form, but with the sense of the singular. This is 
called, pluralis excellentia" 

10th. Also, Calvin, Mercer, Pareus, Drusius, Bellar- 
mine, and others, give the following reasons, why Elo- 
him does not prove a plurality of persons: 

1. Because it often means only the Father, as Ps. xlv, 7. 

2. Or only the Son, as " Thy throne, O God."— Ibid. 

3. Also, "The spirit of Elohim."— Gen. i, 2. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 187 

4. Because it is applied to one calf.— Ex. xxxii, 31. 

5. It is applied to Moses. — Ex. vii, 1. 

6. It is applied to the angel. — Judges xiii, 22. 

7. To a dragon. — Judges xvi, 23. 

8. To Ashtoreth.— 1 Kings, xi, 33. 

11th. Other words are likewise in the plural, as own- 
ers, Ex. xxi, 29 ; Masters, xxi, 4 ; Lords, Holy ones, 
beasts, wounds, rivers, walls, joys, dreams, deaths, favors, 
wisdoms, &c. So one is buried in the towns of Gilead. 
Gen. viii, 4, " The ark rested on the mountains. A very 
high walls ; or One dreamed a dreams ; while another 
was brought from the graves. — Job xxi, 32. 

12th. Calvin says, "I warn my readers against vio- 
lent interpretations of this kind." 

13th. Mercer says, " From other passages of the Scrip- 
ture, the Trinity can be more clearly and easily estab- 
lished." — Concessions, p. 83. 

14th. Dr. Campbell says, " Calvin refuted this argu- 
ment, or quibble rather." See Systematic Theol. p. 489. 

If my brother gives up that word, all well and good. 
I wished to show that there was no Trinity in it. This 
I have done, not only by the nature of the word, but I 
have proved it by the highest Trinitarian authority — such 
men as Stuart, Calvin, Luther, &c. My brother may 
reject them, as he did Dr. South and others ; but they 
will not be rejected — let him therefore treat such author- 
ities courteously. 

I wish my brother to give up his scheme of the Trinity. 
It is untenable. Far better theories have been given up 
by those in the Trinitarian ranks, and will be again. 

I wish him to examine more thoroughly those texts 
which speak of the pre-existence of Our Lord Jesus 
Christ. And I desire the congregation to notice, how 
signally he fails in every argument he has brought for- 
ward to support his theory. And I want you, to come 
ahead, my brother, take off your gloves, and come up to 
the work ; but don't fly off and waste your time in ex- 
temporaneous declamations and exhortations. 



188 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Mr. Flood's Twelfth reply : 

I have not made a practice of quoting learned authors, 
unless I have been led into it, but if I have given any 
erroneous quotations, I hope the reporters will make the 
corrections. I quote Watson on the word Elohim, in the 
article God. Here is one very respectable authority that 
God is one ; but the word is rendered in the plural, I do 
not wish however, to protract the argument in that respect. 
My brother wishes to know, why we should be found deny- 
ing any of these learned authors, and says he is quoting 
authorities on the opposite side; I suppose he will quote 
no other authority. He admitted to me, in a private re- 
mark, that the literary men of the world, ana the litera- 
ture of the world, w r as on our side, but he wished it was 
on his ; I should not think it strange, if he would most 
ardently desire that the literary world was changed upon 
this subject, but perhaps, after his performance, it may 
be so. I ask if he will accept the authority of Kincaid? 
My brother shakes his head. He refers again to the 
question of the Holy Spirit, and quotes some passages as 
to the time it was introduced, but I do not design more 
than just referring to these allusions. He says also, if 
the personality of the Holy Ghost be inferred from the 
association in the Baptismal ceremony, that the personality 
of Fire may as well be predicated. I suppose he alludes 
to What John says, " He that cometh after me baptizeth 
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Hence, I sup- 
pose, that because of that connection, and use of the 
term, we might as well say, " I baptize thee in the name 
of the Father, Son, the Holy Ghost, and of Fire ; " 
meaning that there are four persons in the Godhead, into 
which the subject is baptized. Then perhaps, my bro- 
ther may conceive something like this ; " I shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire." How different 
indeed ! I suppose my brother was uncertain what to do 
with these ; but as it was something formidable, he would 
resolve to attack it ; but it will remain an insurmounta- 
ble barrier to all his attacks. He adverts to the subject 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 189 

of the old enemy. Now I hoped that we should be free 
from that. He alludes to the fact that I prefer the term 
devil, which is a Scriptural term, to the term rascal ; and 
he does not know but what any parent would prefer to 
use the latter term before their child. I treated him as a 
bad and corrupt devil ; hence, I have no reverence when 
I speak the name of the devil. If I regarded him as 
almighty, as possessing the attributes of the divinity, I 
might entertain some fearful notions common on this 
subject. He says, because I adverted to these, I wished 
to make fun ; this seems a favorite phrase of my bro- 
ther's. Again, he says, I make fun of him in calling 
him a second Luther ; well now, if these are not words 
of commendation, and if I did not think them compli- 
mentary, I should feel under an obligation to make an 
apology. I hope he will be willing to regard it in this 
light ; one of his most devoted admirers called him by 
this name. The only discovery for which I claim credit, 
is that of his being a great luminary. He certainly has 
poured the radiance of his understanding around my 
mind, but hitherto failed to produce much effect. He 
complains of me for not submerging him before this ; I 
do not wish to drown him — I am not that Flood that de- 
stroyed the world. I am perfectly willing that he should 
breathe wholesome air, for I hope to find him trying to 
overturn the creed of the Methodists, and make it appear 
that their doctrines are contrary to the teachings of the 
Word of God ; in asserting that there are three persons 
in the Godhead, equal in substance, power, glory, and 
eternity with Jesus Christ, the second person in the Tri- 
nity who is equal in all these perfections with the Father. 
This is the point which I hope to see him make an 
effort to disprove, before he shall have done his work. 
He desires me to direct my attention to John xvi, 28, 
U I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 
world." Again: "I leave the world and go to the 
Father." Is there any place in the whole universe, 
where any creature can be separated from the absolute 



190 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

presence of God ? Is not this language used in an ac- 
commodative sense ? When Christ speaks of himself 
as coming out, it is not understood that he comes out, in 
the sense that a man would come out from a city and go 
from one place to another. Now, Christ declares : 
" Know ye not that I am in the Father, and the Father 
in me." He uses this language at the time of his in- 
carnation, and employs the language u come out," " and 
sent," frequently to show that he came to our sinful 
world, and that he came down to the condition of our 
helpless nature ; that he took upon himself human 
nature, and thereby he came to unite himself with it, 
taking upon him the form of a servant, that he might 
lift up human nature from its fallen and degraded con- 
dition, and restore it to the forfeited favor of Heaven. 
The phrases to which I have referred, are not to be taken 
in their absolute sense. He assumes that my system gave 
to God a body ; and that if it were so, according to my 
system, that Christ might with propriety appear on the 
right hand of that body. Now, here is something more 
of our brother's peculiar style of argument. I hold that 
the infinite perfections of Jehovah, the Father, and the 
Word, and the Holy Ghost, dwell bodily in Jesus Christ. 
How then, could that body, in a literal sense, sit upon 
the right hand of another, unless that they had a body 
also ? Now, the point I wish to know is this : He ad- 
mits that Christ has a body, and the relation which that 
body sustains to God ; then the point is, has God a body 
independent of the physical body of Christ ? When 
you come to answer this, you will find me somewhere 
about you with the gloves off; and when I am disposed 
to give you a passage homew T ard, I will lift the flood- 
gates higher than you have yet seen them. It is said, 
that 

" Little boats should keep near shore, 
But larger boats may venture more/' 

My brother remarks : Christ was conceived by the mira- 
culous overshadowing of the Yirgin Mary by the Holy 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 191 

Ghost. See Luke i, 35. "And the angel answered and 
said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; there- 
fore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God/' - Why is Christ called 
the Son of God ? Because he is the begotten of the 
Father. It is the conclusion announced by the heavenly 
messenger, and the evidence is given — he shall be called 
the Son of God, for the very reason that he is begotten 
of the Holy Spirit : hence his name shall be Son of God. 
Prior to this, I have shown, John i, 14, he was known 
as the Word or Logos ; and if I differ from those who 
advocate the doctrine of the Trinity on the Sonship, it 
does not affect the argument in the slightest degree ; it 
rather strengthens my position. He is termed a Holy 
Thing ; but previous to this he is termed by John, the 
Word, or Logos, which was in the beginning. Well 
may he be called holy ! Here is a twofold argument. 
The humanity itself is not by the ordinary generation, but 
humanity in its perfection. He that created a perfect 
man in the beginning, like Adam ; he that has all 
power, and that formed a perfect human body out of 
dust, had the same power, if he thought proper, to repro- 
duce one of a similar nature, as to body and soul — had 
he not the power to make one of the same kind ? Made 
of a woman, that he might redeem us from the curse of 
the law, and be made a sin-offering for us, had he not 
the power, by the Holy Ghost coming upon and oversha- 
dowing the Virgin Mary, to produce a perfect human 
nature ? The first Adam was made a man in the begin- 
ning, but the reproduction of the second Adam, was the 
Lord of Heaven. He came into the world in the help- 
lessness of infancy, passed through the ordinary stages 
of development, both as to physical constitution and 
mental endowment; it seems, however, to have been 
very rapidly matured, for at twelve years of age he was 
found in the temple disputing with the doctors. Here, 
this is our position : that the second Adam came by the 



192 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing the Yirgin 
Mary. Here is our God-man — here is our union of the 
divine and the human nature together, in the person of 
Jesus Christ, never to be separated permanently. Now, 
when my brother says we have given up anything of 
this subject, let it rest in the mind of the audience, the 
conviction that nothing has been given up. Here, seve- 
ral quotations made from authors by my good friend, 
were certainly balanced by those I presented. I notice 
that some of those to whom reference has been made 
wrote as early as the year 107. This did not give very 
much time for any serious departure from the true faith, 
for John had almost lived to see this period, (Poly- 
carp reached this period, saw and conversed with John), 
and was one of the early candidates for martyrdom in 
the Christian Church : hence, I notice, we have here the 
doctrine clearly set forth, showing the equality of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, constituting the one true 
God of the Bible. However many conflicting authors 
he may have brought forward on Elohim, at least some 
respectable authorities state that this word stands in a 
plural form, and not in the singular, and the term should 
be rendered Gods, not God — at the same time, it does 
apply to one living and true God. Hence, we have 
here, in the person of Jesus Christ, not only equality 
with the Father and the Holy Ghost, but his omnipo- 
tence; for he asserted, " All power in heaven and earth 
is given into my hands ; I have power to lay down my 
life, and I have power to take it again." We notice 
also, that the attribute of omniscience was given Christ — 
"that he knew all things," is the language of Peter. 
This point seems sufficiently clear — " Lord, thou knowest 
all things ; thou knowest that I love thee." The omni- 
science of Christ is also made to appear. In connection 
with this, w T e may infer that he is omnipotent. Three 
passages bearing upon this, my brother has dodged, or 
in feeble language attacked them, as he calls it. u Where- 
ever two or three are gathered together in my name, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 193 

there am I in the midst of them." This involves the 
obligation of Christ to be in every place. He says that 
he might be in different places at the same time, and 
not be omnipresent. I know not how he will make this 
appear. I can very easily conceive how he could be in 
an infinite number of given places at the same time, as 
well as I could understand his presence in a limited 
number. If he allows the fact of his being in more than 
one place at the same time, the omnipresence of Jesus 
Christ is admitted. I assumed, if he could be in more 
than one place, he might be in every place at the same 
time ; and hence he must be omnipresent. This point 
will be strengthened by other testimony. I w r ant to 
point out to you that which has been allowed — that he 
may be in many places at the same time. I am happy 
for this admission ; if it were not so, he w T Ould not be 
an all-sufficient Saviour; if otherwise, he could not 
render succor in the hour of need — as "Where two or 
three are gathered together in his name, there am I 
(says Christ) in the midst of them ;'- for he pervades the 
universe, he occupies and pervades immensity with his 
spiritual presence, and is capable of being everywhere 
to supply the wants and necessities of those who wor- 
ship him in spirit and in truth. And I say to you, in 
conclusion, hold on to the doctrine of your Christ, the 
Father and God ; it is your only hope of salvation ; it 
is your only hope of succor amid all the trials and ills 
of life. I do this, in opposition to my brother's invita- 
tion, to come over and deliver up your faith to him. 
Why does he desire us to come over and join his ranks % 
Is it the wish for our assistance ? Until orthodoxy 
trembles more under the giant tread of my brother, I 
shall certainly be found somewhere clinging about this 
old doctrine, taught by the evangelists, asserted by the 
apostles, proclaimed by Christ, sustained by the apos- 
tles — this doctrine, supported by the true Church of the 
living God in all ages of the world. I shall certainly 
not abandon my faith : notwithstanding all the appealing 
17 



194 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

exhortations of my brother, it is the doctrine upon which 
all my hopes for time and for eternity are suspended. 
On them I trust in life and in death. The heavenly 
record tells me those everlasting arms shall be under- 
neath me ; and the same arms that sustain the pillars of 
the universe, they are the same arms that are underneath 
the everlasting throne — the arm of omnipotence; and 
upon this will I hang my hopes of salvation, and not 
upon any arm of a being inferior to God, the Father. 

Mr. Summerbell's Thirteenth address : 

Kind friends — During the discussion here I have been 
placed upon the affirmative of a negative proposition, to 
discuss the truthfulness of the Trinity. My faith is not 
the question. It is not, therefore, my duty to affirm it, 
although I did so to some extent. I do not, however, wish 
you to be unacquainted with our principles. We receive 
the Bible as a full and complete rule of faith and practice, 
the only one authorized by God, or received by the apos- 
tolic church : all-sufficient to make the man of God per- 
fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works — wise 
unto salvation. We hold that " unto us there is but one 
God the Father, of whom are all things and we in him ; 
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and 
w r e by him. We do not divide God into persons, nor 
parts. To us he is ever One, Infinite, Eternal, and Un- 
changeable, always God ; never a priest or mediator, but 
for ever God. We believe that Jesus Christ is His Son, 
and was His Son before angels or men existed ; the first 
begotten, first-born, only-begotten, the only Son — the Son 
of the living God — by whom He made, saves, and will 
judge the world. Not a mere man, or " very man," 
like my brother ; for how could such a One be the Son 
of God by whom God made the worlds ? We believe in 
repentance, faith, hope, and charity ; in conversion, the 
new birth, justification. We believe in the atonement, 
sanctification, and holiness of life. We think that to 
be a Christian, is, not to obey the doctrines and com- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 195 

mandments of men, but to be like Christ ; to speak like 
him, think like him, feel like him, and act like him ; to 
practise his religion and be conformed to his image. 
Such was the religion of the Apostolic church ; and such 
is ours. A religion, not got up by men, but revealed 
from heaven. 

My brother says, that I admitted, in a private conver- 
sation, that the literary world was on his side. If this 
was done in & private conversation, it w r as not courteous 
in him to use it in public. But I think not. I said the 
literature of the world ; and you all know what we, 
ministers of the Gospel, think of it. I do not, however, 
admit that the really literary men of the world are on 
his side. I claim first, all the eminent Christian fa- 
thers for the first three centuries. I claim all the oldest 
church historians on my side. Neander will testify that 
the Trinity was not a fundamental doctrine of the Chris- 
tian church ; and that the anti-Nicene church held the 
subordination of the Son ; and Barnes plainly repudiates 
the Nicene creed as anti-Trinitarian. My brother can 
not find a man in the Christian church, as early as Poly- 
carp, who ever used the word Trinity. Trinitarians are 
dependent upon Eusebius, whom they call an Arian, for 
the history of the primitive church. All through the 
dark ages, and in the Reformation, the most learned men 
in the world held our views. Dr. Samuel Clarke, and 
many others of the most learned bishops of the Church 
of England, denied the equality of the Son, as testified 
by Mosheim. O, no! I can not give up such men as 
Whiston, and Sir Isaac Newton, and Locke, and Milton, 
and Isaac Watts, the sweet poet ; who repented writing 
those doxologies to the Trinity, and would have destroyed 
them had he not sold the copyright of his book. I will 
not give up such men as these — the true literary men of 
the world; men who could not cramp their intellects 
into the absurd idea, that one side of a triangle is equal 
to its three sides, on the word of Athanasius, nor even 
the authority of a human creed. 



196 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

My brother says, they were baptized in the name of 
the Holy Ghost, and with fire ; but the Bible does not 
say so, and I choose to believe the Bible. But he bap- 
tizes in the name of the Son, not xoyo* ; and how w T ould 
it read to say they were baptized in the name of the 
Father, and of a creature, and of the Holy Ghost ? Yet 
my brother believes that the Son of God is a creature, 
only 1800 years old. John xiii, 3, u Jesus knowing that 
the Father had given all things into his hands, and that 
he was come from God, and went to God," he says that 
he can not believe as it stands literally. If he can not 
believe it as it stands, I wish him to explain what he 
does believe. 

Jesus says, " I came out from the Father: I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will." God sent his 
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. God gave his Son — 
sent his Son. He who thought it not robbery to be equal 
with, or like God, made himself of no reputation, and 
became obedient to death." Who was this ? He says, 
that " he came out from God." I want my brother to 
explain. 

Luke i, 35, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," 
&c. " Therefore, that Holy thing which shall be born of 
thee, shall be called the Son of God." My brother made 
a great mistake here. He says, that the Holy Ghost 
must be a person, as truly as the Father is a person ; for 
the Holy Ghost begat Christ ; and it says in another 
place that the Father begat Christ, &c. He holds that 
the Father is the first person, and that the Holy Ghost is 
the third person, distinct from the Father — independent 
and distinct persons ; and the Athanasian creed says, that 
if we confound the persons, without doubt we shall 
perish everlastingly. 

Now my brother has shown that the Holy Ghost, the 
third person, begat Jesus, and that the Father, the first 
person, begat him (Jesus). So that according to his 
theory two persons begat Jesus. Jesus has two fathers ! 
And this is a just conclusion, if the Trinity be true ! But 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 19T 

that which was born of the Virgin was not simply man. 
John i, 14, The Word — which was in the beginning 
with God — was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we 
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of 
the Father, full of grace and truth. He now challenges 
me to prove that he denied the eternity of the Son, 
and most positively affirms that he did not. Very well ! 
I read in Clarke, " If Christ be the Son of God, as to his 
divine nature, then the Father is prior and superior ; the 
phrase Eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction, absurd 
and dangerous ;" and you well remember that he then 
said, that he did not believe that the Son was eternal, and 
apologized for differing from Watson. 

He now thinks as Jesus was the Son of Abraham and the 
Son of David, &c, that he must be " very man," simply 
human, because he must partake of their nature, as the 
child is a partaker of its parents' nature. But the " Hu- 
manity," was not born in the ordinary manner of gener- 
ation, but was begotten of the Great Father, God ! So 
on his own principles of interpretation, it could not be 
" very man," simple humanity ; for, since it would par- 
take of its Father's nature, it must be part divine. Here 
his very man idea is destroyed. Now, my brother, do 
not back out again. Come right on, and as fast as you 
see your error, forsake it. He says, that God produced 
a perfect human being just like Adam — just as good as 
Adam, and just as human. This is truly very compli- 
mentary to the Lord Jesus Christ. He has just been 
trying to prove him equal to God ; and now he is trying to 
prove that he is equal to Adam — as good as Adam ! Jesus 
Christ is greater and possesses more virtue than Adam 
and all the children of Adam that ever lived. Equal to 
Adam! Paul says, in 1 Cor. xv, 45-47, " The first Adam 
was of the earth, earthy; the second Adam (Christ) is 
the Lord from heaven." Does this make them just 
equal ? He says that the second person in the Trinity 
entered the world as a helpless infant ; but that he (that 
is, the second person,) rapidly improved and matured in 



198 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

his mental and physical faculties. That is, God was a 
helpless infant — God improved and matured ! ! ! &c. This 
seems to require some further explanation, for my brother 
has several times denied it. We wait his reply. In the 
heat of my brother's argument he maintained, that as 
Polycarp lived almost in the time of the apostles, his 
testimony must be good for the Trinity. But he did not 
read him, but read from Justin Martyr, who is given up 
as an Arian by Hawies, the Trinitarian and historian. 
My brother will find no Trinity in Polycarp. He says 
that he has some respectable authorities on his side for 
Elohim. But what authority can he have? All the 
principal authorities are on my side. Let him bring 
them forward, and we will see what they say. 

He quotes that Christ will be wherever two or three 
are assembled in his name, and says, that " any person 
who can be in more than one place at a time, must b& 
omnipresent." But Paul says, Colossians ii, 5, " Though 
I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, 
joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness 
of your faith in Christ ;" and 1 Cor. v, 3, " I also as 
absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged alrea- 
dy." So Christ, while absent in body, is present in spirit. 
Was Paul omnipresent? I suppose that my brother 
can explain these passages away ; he can explain away 
just what he wants away, and leave what he wants to 
leave, and he could explain the others just as well, if he 
wished. 

My brother makes no attempt to explain my argument 
on the personal pronouns in the singular number, applied 
to God, viz : I, Me, My, Thou, Thee, Thy, &c. Jam God, 
and beside Me. This Zand Me, are only one person ; 
yet, this one person says /am God, and beside Me there 
is none else. This being but one person, thus destroys 
the Trinity, since it says that no person but one is God. 
If three persons were all God, it would be We, Our, Us, 
You, Yours, Them, They, &c. If my brother were right, 
it would read, We are God, and beside us there is no 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 199 

God. God is three. The Lord our God, is three Lords. 
But for such doctrine, he must go to the creeds and dox- 
ologies. I want my brother to define what he means by 
three persons. What does personality mean ? What 
person is there that is not a being \ And how can a per- 
son exist without being ? And who told him that the 
three persons in the Trinity, were not three beings ? and 
why, if his views be really orthodox, nothing is said 
about them in the Bible ? Let my brother explain Mark 
xiii, 32, and tell us why the Son did not know ? Matt. 
xxiv, 26, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Father only ? He 
has not yet answered, whether he that took the book out 
of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne, Rev. v, 
is the same being who sat upon the throne ? Let him 
answer this. 

Now comes his authority on Elohim. He appealed to 
Watson, to prove that the text should be translated, " In 
the beginning the Gods created the heavens, and the 
earth." Well ! this proves it, providing the authority 
can be depended upon. And what then ? Why, my 
brother now has three Gods, or why does he quote such 
authority ? why prove it, if he does not believe it ? He 
says that there are three persons in the Godhead ; but 
Watson says u Gods" My brother may say that they 
are not Gods, but are they not three infinite persons ? 
He says that they are not Gods, simply, because the 
Bible says that there is but one God. But if he proves 
three Gods, then the Bible stands corrected by his theory. 
" They say, Jehovah the Gods." u In the beginning the 
Gods." Now if this is not true, why does he quote it, and 
call it authority ? He says that three infinite beings 
could not exist, &c; but they could exist just as well as 
three infinite persons, personality always includes being. 
There is no difference whatever between persons and 
beings. What is a person, is a being. There is not a 
solitary reason which can be urged against three infinite 
beings, which is not just as strong against three infinite 
persons. If three persons are each infinite, then they are 



200 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

all Gods. If they are equal in substance, substance 
must include being, hence three beings — three Gods ; 
but if they are not substances, then they are nothing. 
Each of the three possessing equal power, equal glory, 
equal eternity, there must be, by his own showing, three 
Gods. Three persons all omnipotent. Three persons 
all omnipresent. Three persons all omniscient. Three 
persons each of whom has all the infinite attributes, must 
be three Gods. I demand of my brother, if his three per- 
sons are not three Gods, to tell what would constitute them 
three Gods ? What do they lack ? What would be three 
Gods, if they are not ? What three are they, if they are 
not three Gods ? My friends, the only way to be con- 
sistent, is to abandon your favorite theory. Abandon 
your creed (Constitution and Discipline). This you may 
safely do, for it has only earthly authority, and although 
he exhorts you to stick to it as your only hope, don't you 
believe it. Thousands were saved before any such Dis- 
cipline was thought of in the world, and thousands are 
now saved who do not believe in it ; yea, happy am I that 
my brother's salvation does not depend upon his faith 
in it. 

My brother is not satisfied that EloTiim, should be ren- 
dered God, but is sure that it should be "Gods!" but 
my friends, Clarke himself, when the Trinity is not to be 
supported, consents that it should be translated God. On 
Gen. iii, 5, " Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be 
as Gods," Clarke says : u Your understandings shall be 
greatly enlightened and improved, and ye shall be as 
Gods, DTi^sa he EloTiim, ' like God,' so the word should 
be translated, for what idea could our first parents have 
of Gods." — darkens Notes on Genesis iii, 5. 

In Acts vii, 59, "They stoned Stephen calling upon 
God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." The 
word God is supplied by the translators. Neither Cole- 
ridge nor Locke, think that this was properly prayer, 
since Jesus was visible. Whether it was or not, is not 
material to the question, as long as my brother admits 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 201 

Rev. i, 4, is an invocation for grace, from the seven 
angels ! Coleridge was a Trinitarian. Locke I quote, 
simply, as a great scholar and Christian philosopher ; but 
not as authority, since he belongs to my side of the house, 
on this question. His opinion on Romans ix, 5, " Christ 
came, who is over all God blessed forever," is, that, it 
should be rendered, Christ came, who is over all ; God 
be blessed forever. I wish to quote none, but the first 
class of authors. Coleridge, on Mark xiii, 32, says : " This 
most difficult text I have not seen satisfactorily ex- 
plained." — Lit. Remains iv, 219-20. He rejects the 
two-nature scheme. 

I want this congregation to remember, that my brother 
has not, in the three days' debate, confessed that he would 
worship the Jesus that died for him. He will worship 
the Divine nature that was in him, but the Divine nature, 
he holds, could not suffer or die, and was not that person 
that was begotten and could, and did suffer and die. He 
will worship the God that Jesus prayed to, and so will 
Socinians ; but the man of sorrows, the suffering Jesus, 
whose sweat falls to the ground as great drops of blood, 
that Jesus who said, my soul is exceedingly sorrowful 
even unto death, and whom the angel strengthened, he 
will not worship, because he says, he is a creature, and it 
would be idolatry. He will worship him as God, that is, 
he will worship the God who dwelt in him ; for if he 
means he will worship the very man, as God, he has 
decided that to be idolatry. Look at him, my brother. 
Look at that brow pierced with thorns. Ah ! you reply, 
that is a human brow, I can not worship it. Look at that 
back, scourged and bleeding. Ah ! you reply, that is 
the back of a man, I can not worship that. Look at the 
face, all marred by blows, torn by plucking off* the hair 
and defiled by spitting, and those eyes all blinded by 
clotted gore ; but you will not worship the sufferer ; you 
esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted ; you 
will worship the God that supported him. So did the 
Jews, who rejected him. Look at the cross, and an- 



202 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

swer what is the nature of that body. The answer is, 
that that is a human body. Look at those outstretched, 
bleeding hands and feet ; see where the cruel iron pierced 
them, and tell me the nature of those hands ; but he says 
that they are human hands. Look at those eyes, beam- 
ing with compassion for his enemies — see the look of 
anguish and sorrow cast upon Peter ; but still the answer 
is, they are created eyes. The lips they touch with gall 
are created lips. The voice that said Father, forgive, was 
a creature's voice. Hear him cry, My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me ? Ah ! cries my brother, that is 
what I worship — the God that forsook him ; but I can 
not worship the forsaken — the Lamb slain — the very 
man — the creature. God can not suffer. God can not 
die, and he will not worship that which can. The bleed- 
ing, groaning, dying, he will not worship. The suffering 
Jesus, the Lamb slain, worshiped by angels, is rejected as 
a creature unworthy of worship by Trinitarians. My 
friends, worship Jesus. AVorship him as the Son of God. 
Worship him as the Lamb slain ; so the saints and angels 
in heaven worship God and the Lamb. Those are idola- 
ters, not who worship the Son as the Son of God, but 
who worship others as God, beside the one true and living 
God — who honor the creature more than the Creator ? 
who have other gods beside him who said, beside Me 
there is no God ? Let my brother explain. If he wor- 
ships his God's body as God, then he worships a creature. 
If he rejects it, then he does not worship all of his God. 
If he worships Jesus' human nature as God, then he 
worships a creature as God, and according to his own 
logic, is an idolater ; while, if he rejects it, as he must, 
then he only worships a part of his Jesus, viz : the Divine 
nature that dwelt in him. We, says the apostle, are 
partakers of the Divine nature, but that nature is not us. 

Mr. Flood's Thirteenth reply : 

I am quite gratified, in one particular, at the sobriety 
of my good brother's spirit. He enters calmly on the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 203 

discussion. This is very gratifying. I advanced an argu- 
ment from Dr. Watson, on the word Elohim, which in 
Genesis i, stands in the plural form — a plurality of per- 
sons existing in the Godhead. This position is sustained 
by Dr. Clarke, in an extensive view of the subject. He 
presents it in a critical manner, showing, that as the root 
of this word is not to be found in the original Hebrew, it 
must be traced tQ its verb, and that verb must be found 
in the Arabic. And here it is found connected with its 
genitive, subjoined to verbs and pronouns in the plural. 
He then presents a number of passages, which I will 
quote to my brother, to direct his attention to them, so 
that he may investigate this subject further. 

Clarke on Gen. i. "The original word Elohim, God, has 
long been supported by the most eminently learned and 
pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the Divine 
nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the 
Sacred writings to be confined to three persons, hence the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which has formed a part of the 
creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the 
faith from the earliest ages of Christianity. He must be 
strangely prejudiced, indeed, who can not see that the 
doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is clearly 
expressed in the above words. The verb bar a, he crea- 
ted, being joined in the singular number with this plural 
noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not 
obscurely, the unity of the Divine persons in this work 
of creation, in the ever blessed Trinity : from the infinite 
and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one 
will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable 
energy. Let those who have any doubt whether Elohim, 
when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, 
consult the following passages, where they will find it 
joined with adjectives, verbs, and pronouns plural : Gen. 
i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 7, 53; xxxv,7; Deut. iv, 
7; v, 23; Josh, xiv, 19; 1 Sam. iv, 8; 2 Sam. vii, 23; Ps. 
lviii, 12; Is.vi, 8; Jer.x,10; xxiii, 56; Prov. ix,10; xxx, 3; 
Ps. cxlix, 2; Ec. v,7; xii, 1; Job v, 1; Is. vi,3; lxiv, 5; Is. lxii, 
5; Hos. xi, 12; xii, 1; Mat. i 3 6; Dan. v, 18, 20; vii,18, 22." 



204 DSSCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

In all ot these passages, numbering about thirty, the 
word stands in this form, and the brother will have an 
opportunity for a very learned investigation of this word 
Elohim. But I insist, however, that it should be so ren- 
dered. " It makes more Gods than one," but our learned 
author does not think so. My brother thinks where God 
speaks thus, he says that the personal pronoun "I" 
should be changed to " we." Now this language does 
occur, and it is strange, that if he has read the first chap- 
ter of Genesis, he has not noticed where it is said, " let us 
make man;" the proposition is the result of his own 
choice. He says that the literary world and the litera- 
ture of the world is on my side, and he expresses an 
anxiety that it should be on his. I have been waiting 
for and expecting an authority of his own, on the Divinity ; 
he makes reference to none. He claims Dr. Locke as one 
of their authorities., but does not seem to rely much upon 
him, because he thinks it would be ex parte testimony. 
It would be interesting to have some authorities, at least, 
from his party. He is quoting orthodox authors, in 
which there seems to be confirmation of his views. They 
must be garbled statements of the authors' meaning, if 
taken from authors whose opinions — 

Summerbell. — I ask if it is wrong to quote his authors, 
and if the quotations I have given have been garbled ? 
I appeal to the Moderators. 

Flood. — I did not say that he garbled them ; but it 
would be noticed, in making quotations from Trinitarian 
authors, that they must be garbled or imperfect views of 
the author. 

Moderators. — Our opinion, in regard to this matter, 
is that brother Summerbell has a perfect right, in all 
conscience, to select Trinitarian authors, and prove his 
position. At the same time, as these authors are ac- 
knowledged Trinitarians, if they prove anything else 
but the Trinity, these extracts must be taken out of their 
regular course. 

Summerbell. — I quote them to explain certain texts, to 
show that they have given up those texts. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 205 

Moderators. — I should like to remark, as Elder Sum- 
merbell is placed in the affirmative, he has a right to 
introduce any testimony he thinks proper, to sustain his 
proposition, namely, that the creed of his opponent is 
unscriptural ; hence, we decide, that he has a right to in- 
troduce this testimony. 

Flood. — I have not yet disputed Mr. Summerbell's 
right to introduce these texts ; I have never once ques- 
tioned his right. 

Moderators. — Perhaps it would be as well to introduce 
a word equally strong, but not quite so harsh. 

Flood. — Is not the word garbled a correct word, ex- 
pressing a perversion of the author's meaning ? 

Summerbell. — He, says my brother, garbled ; and if he 
means what he says let him prove it. 

Flood. — I presume my brother felt he had need of 
this, but I am not disconcerted, hence I shall proceed 
with the argument; I shall quote an authority upon which 
I founded my remarks, as to the begetting of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, "And the angel answered and said unto 
her, the power of the Highest," &c. Now my friend ad- 
mits, in his whole argument, that the highest is God. 
He states that I denied the Son of God was eternal. 
Now I wish my brother would not misrepresent me. I 
now state emphatically, I never denied any such thing ; 
I have asserted, time and again, that the Son of God was 
eternal ; but it was improper to say that he was the eter- 
nal Son of God ; but how can you reconcile them ? He 
existed not as the Son, but existed in the capacity of 
the Word or Logos, and was designated as the Son of 
God, begotten of the Father ; hence he is eternal in his 
existence as God ; but not the eternal Son of God ; vet the 
Son of God is eternal, if man as begotten of the Father is 
eternal. All the quibbling that may be had over this, I 
am willing that my brother should have the benefit of it, 
so long as his book shall live and flourish among the litera- 
ture of the world ; and it is hoped it may flourish for my 



206 DISCUSSION GN THE TRINITY. 

sake. He has insisted again and again, that I am not 
coming up with him — I conceived myself to be far in ad- 
vance ; but he shouts, Come on ! Come on ! This would 
be encouraging to a man who was about to faint by the 
way — who was enfeebled under the strokes of the enemy — 
to assume a good feeling toward him, to one whom I had 
rendered infirm, to say, Come on. Well now, under all 
of these considerations your humble servant has not yet 
been able to make the discovery. I thought he was con- 
scious that I was somewhere in his neighborhood with my 
gloves off, and I was therefore surprised at his invitation 
to "Come on." I am already on, and I calculate to try, 
with the blessing of God, to be on all the time. Two or 
three passages I shall pass, and notice some other points 
to which he has invited attention ; the first is that which 
relates to the knowledge of Christ being limited, "Of 
that day and hour know T eth no man," &c. 

We will give the brother a few references : Isaiah ii, 2 ; 
Matt, ix, 4 ; xii, 25 ; Luke ix, 47 ; Mark ii, 8 ; Luke vii, 
39, 40 ; John ii, 24, 25 ; vi, 64 ; xiv ; Acts i, 24 ; 1 Cor. 
iv, 5 ; Heb. iv, 12 ; Eev. xix, 15 ; ii, 23; Luke ii, 40 ; 
Col. ii, 3. 

We will now quote first, John v, 20, " And we know 
that the Son of God is come and hath given us an under- 
standing, that we may know him that is true ; and we 
are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ ; this 
is the true God and eternal life," in support of the truth, 
that Jesus Christ is the true God. You recollect yester- 
day, this subject was addressed to our consideration, that 
Jesus Christ was the true God ; I will quote here the lan- 
guage of Clarke on this passage. 

Clarke, 1 John v, 20, u And we know that the Son of 
God is come, and hath given us an understanding that 
we may know him that is true, and w r e are in him that 
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
God and eternal life." (" We know that the Son of God 
is come") in the flesh, and has made his soul an offering 
for sin, and hath given us an understanding, a more 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 207 

eminent degree of light than we ever enjoyed before, for 
as he lay in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
him unto us, and he hath beside given us a spiritual un- 
derstanding, that we may know him who is true, even 
the true God, and get eternal life from him through his 
Son, in whom we are by faith, as the branches in the 
vine, deriving all our knowledge, light, life, love and 
fruitfulness from him. And it is through this revelation 
of Jesus, that we know the ever blessed and glorious 
Trinity, and the Trinity Father, Word and Holy Ghost, 
in the eternal undivided unity of the ineffable Godhead." 

This language of Clarke will hardly admit, that if he 
were an honest man, that he could distinctly give counte- 
nance to a doctrine that would contradict it, and Dr. 
Clarke nowhere intended to give countenance to that 
which would support the contrary doctrine. The lan- 
guage of John, here, is so pointed and clear, it will not 
possibly admit o£La misunderstanding, " We know him, 
and he is true — this is the true God," &c. Now Christ 
declared to his disciples, that he would give unto them 
eternal life, and promises that he will be to them the 
author of eternal lite. John vi, 27, " Labor not for the 
meat that perisheth," &c. It is by right of his authority 
to confer eternal life upon his servants. My brother 
quotes several passages, Eccles. ii, 12 ; Isaiah i, 3 ; ix, 
6, and I really was surprised when my good brother di- 
rected his attention to Isaiah ix, 6, " his name shall be 
called God," &c.; and then too he made a quotation 
showing the power and authority with which he was in- 
vested, as the supreme almighty ruler of universal em- 
pire ; and if he be, it is his right, as self-existing and 
eternal God, to rule. 

My brother, by conferring almighty power upon the Son, 
and claiming that it is not original, does he know that it 
is communicated from its original author, and the original 
author thereby divests himself of omnipotence, and ceases 
to possess it, he subjects himself to the will of him by 
whom this almighty power was conferred ; and such will 



208 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

be the end and conclusion drawn from the premises, in 
whichever light my brother may see proper to place it ? 
Child born the Son of God ! I am sorry the whole world 
has not learned this truth. His name shall be called 
Wonderful ; therefore his name shall be called the Son 
of God. And now I prove from the authority of Isaiah, 
that he shall be called not only the Son of God, but that 
every attestation is given of his power and Godhead, 
ftie Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God ; here is a 
reference to his almighty power, as God ; this same is the 
child born, the Son of God. 

When such deeply interesting events take place, for 
the benevolent purpose of the redemption of our race, it 
is not wonderful that a strange phenomenon should 
appear in the heavens ; that a new star should be seen, 
and attract the attention of the w T ise men, devoted to the 
important purpose of a light to point out to them the 
place where the young child was, and when it came to 
the spot, it reverently paused in the heavens above, and 

Eointed out the resting-place of the babe, the promised 
tessiah, the redeeming God of our perishing world : that 
it should, by this act, point to him, was but befitting the 
important occasion ; ere the instant reverence inspired 
the mind with devotion for this strange personage, 
gifts were poured out, and acts of devotion joined in 
announcing with the songs of angels, his introduction 
as the Kedeemer of man, tor they sang " Glory to God, 
in the highest, on earth, peace and good-will to men." 
Thanks be to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
for this divine intelligence, Unto you is born this day, 
in the city of David, a Christ ; how shall he do it— by 
the power of Michael, Gabriel, by the power of man ? No! 
He shall lay down the price of redemption and redeem 
man ; it is the price of a perfect human nature, united with 
the power of the omnipotent ; he shall redeem men by price 
and by power ; the captain of our salvation has appeared, 
and become a sacrifice unto the law of ceremonies for 
righteousness ; and hence, we have pointed out this event 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 209 

referred to by Isaiah ; God says, when he bringeth his first 
begotten into the world, let all the angels of God worship 
him. I say, let all the earth worship him, for unto him 
shall every knee bow, and tongue confess, that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. 

Mr. Summerbell's Fourteenth address : 

Mr. Summerbell said, I like the closing remarks of my 
brother's speech, just as well as he, and if we were at a 
revival meeting, I think that I would like them still 
better. However, I can but briefly notice it. I like 
these good religious addresses ; these expressions of pure, 
and undefiled religion. I feel good under them. I want 
my brother ever to enjoy this spirit, and never to get out 
of the way. I rejoice that ours is a religion of the heart, 
as well as the head. 

He said that Jesus paid the price of our redemption. I 
ask to whom did he pay this price ? Was it to God % 
So he seems to intimate. But I thought that he came to 
redeem us TO God, not from God. My brother is con- 
stantly relying on Trinitarians to prove his theory. Now, 
what would you think of me, if I should gravely attempt 
to prove my position right, by Kincaid or some Unita- 
rian authority ? Yet, he objects to my using his authors 
for proof; and says, that he does not like my calling 
witnesses from his side of the house. Do you not see 
that he accuses me wrongfully ? Who can be better tes- 
timony for me, than my brother's own witnesses ? They 
are my authority, and they are real authority. But he 
says that I read only a part ; but how could I read their 
whole works here I It would take me seven years to 
read all that they say on my side. Let my brother read 
the rest. He says that it would be interesting to have 
some authors on my side. I have very much wondered 
that he had not, and more, at his bringing such piles of 
books here, as he has done, day after day, and all Tri- 
nitarian ! I wish he would bring some of our authors, 
Eusebius, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Milton, and 
18 



210 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

others. His Trinitarian authors are no authority on his 
side in this discussion ; but they are good for me, for 
when they give up a text, we know that it is because it 
cannot be made to support the Trinity. My brother 
seems to think that God has no power beyond the bounds 
of heaven and earth ; but I think that his power extends 
everywhere. I cannot limit omnipotence. God could 
create ten thousand worlds, amid the outer darkness, in 
the far off and uninhabited regions of infinite space, 
where the remotest ray of the most distant star has never 
penetrated, nor the eccentric comet ever visited ; and 
people them with other races of intelligences, and light 
them up with other suns. My brother's ideas of infinity 
resemble those of a child, who supposes a mile an infi- 
nite distance, because it is a good way, and the distant 
hill top, the end of the world. There is power outside 
of heaven and earth. But if Jesus was invested with all 
power, did not some one give it to him ? That one is 
the supreme God, of whom Paul says, 1 Cor. xv, " HE 
hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, 
all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE is 
excepted, which did put all things under him. And 
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
Son also himself be subject unto Him^ that put all things 
under him, that God may be all in all. 5 ' My brother 
quotes 1 John v, 20, "And we know that the Son of God 
is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 
may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is 
true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
God and eternal life," and quotes Clarke to show that 
Christ is this true God, as though Clarke was authority 
against me. He is none whatever. I respect his learn- 
ing, but he is not orthodox. Being a Methodist, and 
acknowledged by my brother, he is authority for me 
against him ; but none against me. Clarke is not my 
interpreter. Macknight is better authority on this text, 
for though he may not be so learned in oriental literature, 
yet he was a better classical scholar, and more truly 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 211 

orthodox. And Macknight agrees with me, that true God 
refers to God, not to the Son. He says, (giving the 
opinion of others approvingly) : "If the apostle by outos 
means Jesus Christ, he maketh him the true God, not- 
withstanding, in the sentence which immediately precedes 
outos, he distinguishes the true one from his Son Jesus 
Christ." Also, " now, although our translators have de- 
stroyed that distinction, and have made Jesus Christ the 
true God, by inserting the w T ord even, &c, they have in- 
serted that word, without the authority of any ancient 
MS., &c." John says that Jesus has given us the under- 
standing, that we might know the only true God. This 
understanding will be found John xvii, 1-3, "These 
words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and 
said, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy 
Son may also glorify thee. As thou hast given him 
power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to 
as many as thou hast given him ; and this is life eternal, 
that they might know THEE, the ONLY true God, and 
Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent !" Here the Son, who 
had glory with the Father before the world was, says that 
his Father in one person is the only true God. 

He quotes several texts to show that Jesus knew the 
day and the hour of the end of the world, which he said, 
he did not know. Mark xiii, 32. I must believe Jesus. 
I could not feel that I honored Jesus, if I did not believe 
him, and I do want to honor him. He acknowledges 
that he does not believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of 
God ! but that the human nature was the Son ; but let 
that pass. He asserts that the Holy Ghost begat Christ, 
and that the Father begat him. He thus destroys his 
own theory, and proves that two persons begat Jesus of 
the Virgin, and that he had two fathers ; he cannot cast 
it off, the difficulty is in the theory of the Trinity. The 
first person and the last person in the Trinity, both begat 
the second person in the Trinity. So the third person in 
the Trinity, is the Father of Christ. True, Luke says 
that the Holy Ghost begat Christ, but Luke did not 
believe that the Holy Ghost was a person. Luke was 



212 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

no Trinitarian. We believe that the Holy Ghost was 
the power of the Highest, which overshadowed the Virgin, 
(Luke i, 35), and not a distinct person. 

I now desire yet, to present you with about one hundred 
texts from Scripture, in proof that Jesus is the Son of 
God, which I want my brother to explain. He has tried 
similar texts and failed, but I hope he will try these. 

Luke ii, 49, " I must be about my Father's business." 

Matt, xi, 25, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
and earth." 

Matt, xi, 27, " All things are delivered unto me of my 
Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father." 

Luke xxii, 42, " Father, if thou be willing, remove this 
cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be 
done." 

John vi, 57, " I live by the Father." Surely this is 
not self-existence ? 

John xv, 1, " I am the true vine, and my Father is 
the husbandman." 

Matt, xx, 23, " Not mine to give, but it shall be given 
to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." 

Matt, xxvi, 53, " Thinkest thou that I can not pray to 
my Father?" 

John v, 43, " I am come in my Father's name, and ye 
receive me not." 

John viii, 28, " As my Father hath taught me, I speak 
these things." 

John viii, 38, " I speak that which I have seen with 
my Father." 

John viii, 28, " My Father is greater than I." 

John xx, 17, " I ascend to my Father and to your 
Father, to my God and to your God." 

Luke i, 32, "He shall be called the Son of the High- 
est." Not the Highest. 

Matt, xvi, 16, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." 

Mark viii, 32, " Of that hour knoweth no man — not 
the angels — neither the Son," "but the Father only." 
Matt, xxiv, 36. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 213 

Mark xiv, 61, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
blessed." 

John i, 18, " Only begotten Son who is in the bosom 
of the Father." 

John iii, 35, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath 
given," &c. John v, 20. 

John iii 36, " He that believeth on the Son hath life." 

John iii, 36, " He that believeth not the Son, shall not 
see life." 

John v, 19, " The Son can do nothing of himself." 

John v, 19, " Whatsoever things the Father doeth, 
these doeth the Son." 

John v, 21, " As the Father quickeneth, &c, so the 
Son quickeneth whom he will." 

John v, 22, " The Father — hath committed all judg- 
ment to the Son." 

John v, 23, "That all men should honor the Son, even 
as they honor the Father." 

John v, 23, " He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth 
not the Father." 

John v, 26, " Father — hath given the Son to have life 
in himself." 

John vi, 40, " Every one that seeth the Son and be- 
lieveth — hath everlasting life." 

John viii, 35, " Servant abideth not for ever, but the 
Son abideth for ever." 

John viii, 36, " If the Son therefore shall make you 
free, you shall be free indeed." 

John xiv, 13, " That the Father may be glorified in 
the Son." 

1 Oor. xv, 28, " Then shall the Son" — not the human 
nature, but the Son to whom all things are subdued — 
" deliver up the kingdom to him that put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all." 

John v, 25, u The dead shall hear the voice of the 
Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 

John i, 49, " Nathaniel said, thou art the Son of God." 

Jno. i, 34, "John bare record that this is the Son of God." 



214 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Gal. i, 1, " Paul an apostle, not of man, neither by 
man, but by Jesus Christ." 

Gal. i, 11, " The Gospel preached by me is not after 
man ; for I neither received it of men, neither was I 
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 

Eev. v, 3, " No man in heaven, nor in earth, neither 
under the earth, was able to open the book." 

Rev. v, 5, u Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah 
hath prevailed to open the book." 

Eev. v, 7, " And he came and took the book out of 
the right hand of him that sat upon the throne." 

By these texts you see, that Jesus is not a man, but a 
being of heaven, whose Father is Gocl. O, my friends, 
where is the difficulty of believing that God has a Son ? 
Why can we not believe this great truth, this fundamen- 
tal truth of the Christian religion ? God sent his Son 
for our salvation, not a mere man as good as Adam. 

My brother quotes texts, to show that we should honor 
Christ, and that he has great power and glory. Why, 
the Lord bless my brother, we believe all this. He can 
never give Christ glory enough. He is the Son of the 
living God. Could you believe this, you could see his 
glory. If you can not believe it, just for a moment 
imagine that the great Eternal One has a Son, the bright- 
ness of his glory, and the express image of his person, 
w 7 ho does all things to please the Father ; by whom, and 
for whom, God created all things; before whom, angels 
bow in worship at the command of the Father ; and that 
this Son left the throne of glory, for us and our sal- 
vation, stooped to a world of sin and sorrow, and died 
to redeem us ; would you think that we could honor him 
enough ? As our King w T e should obey him ; as our 
Priest we reverence him ; as our Saviour we adore him ; 
but not independent of the Father, but we honor the Son 
to the glory of God the Father. John saw a door opened 
in heaven, and there, in the highest, brightest, mansion 
in the universe, where the bright fields of eternal day 
swell with untold millions of celestial spirits, hosts 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 215 

rising above hosts, and legions rising above legions, there 
is the mansion of the Deity. The innumerable hosts of 
angels extend around in the vast circumference. The 
white-vested elders upon burnished thrones, shine like 
stars in an inner circle. The four living creatures, the 
mighty seraphim, with their unsleeping, universal eyes, 
and burning wheels, and lightning velocity, come nearer 
the center, where upon a great white throne, whose base 
o'ertops the universe, sits One, whose head and hairs are 
white like snow; whose vesture dipped in blood, is white 
and glistering ; whose waist is girded with a golden gir- 
dle ; whose feet are as fine brass burning in the fire ; 
whose countenance is as the sun shining in his strength ; 
whose eyes are as a flame of fire ; whose voice is as the 
sound of many waters ; who holds the seven stars in his 
right hand ; while he walks in the midst of the golden 
candlesticks ; out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two- 
edged sword ; upon his head are many crowns, and upon 
his thigh, the name written, KING OF KINGS, AND 
LORD OF LORDS. His plastic hand created the tall- 
est angels ; his moulding power formed the worlds of 
glory ; his precious blood redeems our race of sinners, 
and his eternal fiat shall judge the universe. And yet 
this is not the first Great Cause ? This is the Son seated 
at the right hand of the great eternal, unseen, invisible 
one, whom no man hath seen nor can see ; and when the 
celestial choir, in loud thunders sound the praise of 
heaven, they sing, " Great and marvelous are thy works, 
Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou 
King of saints." My brother, you may stretch your 
imagination to its utmost bounds, and you can never give 
him glory enough. The high seraphs of heaven fall 
down before him, and hide their faces in his presence ; 
then how shall I honor him enough, or love him enough ? 
Let us then praise him for evermore, with all our ran- 
somed powers. 

But my brother has no such Son of God : his Son of 
God is but eighteen hundred years old — the " very man;" 



216 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 

not the pre-existent one. But there was a Son of God 
before the Virgin Mary existed. 

Psalms ii, 7, God says to him, " Thou art my Son : this 
day have I begotten thee ; ask of me and I will give thee 
the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
of the earth for thy possession." Now this great power 
is not to be entrusted to a mere man, but to the pre- 
existent Son of God. 

Prov. xxx, 4, " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or 
descended ? who hath gathered the wind in his fist ?" 
" What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou 
canst tell." Here we are taught that there was a Son 
of God during the Old Testament dispensation. 

Dan. iii, 25. u Lo, said Nebuchadnezzar, I see four 
men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they 
have no hurt ; and the form of the fourth is like the SON 
of God." 

Gen. i, 26. "God said, Let us make man." And I 
doubt not but Paul spoke in reference to this very agency, 
when he said, Heb. i, 1-3, " God, who in sundry times 
and divers manners, spoke in times past unto the fathers 
by the prophets, hath, in these last times, spoken unto 
us by his Son, w r hom he hath appointed heir of all things ; 
by whom, also, he made the worlds." 

Now, on my brother's theory, God could not have 
created the worlds by his Son ; for he thinks that he had 
no Son until the miraculous conception. But these texts 
prove that there was a Son of God before he was born in 
the flesh. Now let my brother attack this difficulty, and 
remove it if he is able. Again, Jesus says, " My father 
is greater than I." Now, how is the Father greater than 
the Son, if the Son is in all things equal ? And if he 
is not in all things equal, then he is not absolutely equal, 
but only equal in some things. Or were there two 
Christs, one of whom was equal with God, and one of 
whom was not ? He says, that there were two natures, 
but these two natures are two beings — very God and 
very man. Two persons, I the God, and I the man. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 217 

Two intelligences — two powers — two existences; one 
thirty years old, the other eternal. One knew all ; the 
other only part. One could do all ; the other could do 
nothing of himself. The truth is, there were not two 
persons in Christ, but one. Christ is not divided. He is 
one Son of God. In the parable of the vineyard, Mark 
xii, 6, it says, that " having yet, therefore, one Son, his 
well-beloved, he sent him last unto them, saying, they 
will reverence my Son," 

Where is the force of this passage on my brother's 
theory, that the Son was not divine but a mere creature — 
one of the husbandmen to whom the Lord of the vine- 
yard united himself? Such is not the truth. But Eom. 
viii, 32, " God spared not his own Son, but delivered 
him up for us all." Oh! my dear brother, you must 
feel the weight of these Scriptures. God had a Son be- 
fore the world was. That Son had glory with the Father 
before the world was. That Son came down from heaven, 
not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him. 
Oh ! my dear friends ! think not lightly of denying the 
Son of God. How often is faith, on this point, set forth 
in God's Word. This is the foundation of all our hope. 
Oh ! that you would realize that it is a great thing, that 
God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, 
but have everlasting life ; but there is no such display of 
love in the gift of a mere man, or " very man." 

Mr. Flood's Fourteenth reply : 

I feel gratified that I am still growing in the estimation 
of my brother. Yesterday he thought I might answer 
for a blower and striker ; but this hour he w T ould be willing 
to have me preaching with him, united in the Christian 
church! Now that I have come to be regarded and 
respected by my brother in the light of a brother, cer- 
tainly this is a compliment to be paid one so humble as 
myself. 

My brother says that he did not assert that omnipotent 
19 



218 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

power was delegated to Jesus Christ. I have proved that 
all things were made by him, and for him ; whether they 
be things in heaven, or things in earth ; all things were 
made by him, and by him do all things exist. If all this 
be true, and yet he does not possess omnipotent power, 
either of absolute right, as his own, or by delegation, I 
should like to know where omnipotence existed ? when 
all things were created by him, and for him, I should 
like to know where that omnipotent power did exist? 
Whether they be thrones or dominions, &c, all things 
were made by him, and for him, and without him was no- 
thing made that was made. If omnipotent energy is not 
exerted in creation, where is it ? If the God of creation 
is not an omnipotent God, in what being shall we search 
for this absolute perfection ? My brother wishes it dis- 
tinctly understood that that omnipotent power was God. 
Again, if omnipotent power is not exerted in Providence 
by the Son of God, then it is not exerted at all: for by 
him do all things exist. If omnipotent energy is not 
necessary to the support of universal empire— to the 
maintenance of universal existence — to the sustaining 
of the laws of nature, in their endless ramifications, I 
want to know where omnipotent energy pervades the 
universe ? where is evidence of it given ? Yet this 
power is declared to be possessed by Jesus Christ. I say 
this brother is in great danger, at present, of annihilating 
the delegated God. Yesterday I showed that both Provi- 
dence and Redemption were essential, and were acknowl- 
edged in Jesus Christ by my brother ; but it was seen how 
very tenaciously he held that it was by delegation ; but 
when this delegated power could not sustain itself, either 
" by the testimony of Revelation, or logical induction," 
the brother has become alarmed — and it is the only point 
that he has abandoned — the position of Christ's omnipo- 
tence. I find the essential attributes of infinity, in the 
persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not making 
three Gods, as my brother will force that conclusion, but 
as constituting the one true and living God of the Bible, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 219 

whom I have asserted is one God, not three Gods. The 
God of Providence, the God of Redemption, uniting the 
infinite energies of Jehovah in the several offices which 
the persons of the Trinity are represented as filling, not 
increasing the number of persons, but identifying their 
natures into one. The God, Word, or Logos, and the 
Holy Spirit, as the almighty agent of the other persons 
in the Trinity, to execute the design of his glorious un- 
dertaking, in conjunction with the Father and the Son. 
What God the Father does, God the Son approves ; for 
in the councils of the divine mind in the Godhead, in the 
persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is 
harmony, no division. They are one in every essential ; 
one God, composed of three persons ; hence the brother 
will not think it worth while to run over the ground 
again. 

Respecting the omnipotence of Jesus Christ — the 
almighty power of Jesus Christ — my brother quotes a 
number of passages, all of which he wishes me to notice : 
" I have power to lay down my life," &c, and wishes to 
know if God had power to lay his life down. I assert 
that all life emanates from God. He is the author of all 
life, in all worlds the source of life, and hence he uses 
this language: "I have power to lay down my life," 
the life of the perfect human nature, which was united 
and identified with the Deity — a union most mysterious 
to the world, and ever to remain so. I have power 
for the time being to lay this life down. I have asserted 
that the Divine nature could not die, but a perfect human 
nature, identified with the God, who is very God, and 
very man, the Lord Jesus Christ. The human nature 
did die, and it was this life to which Christ alluded, when 
he said, " I have power to lay down my life." Again, 
when he said, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I 
will build it up again." It is the same life of which he 
says he has power to lay down. The Evangelist says, he 
refers to the temple of his body, and not to the temple 
of Jerusalem. " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," 



220 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

was fully redeemed in the resurrection of the body of 
Jesus Christ from the grave, on the third morning. Had 
he not possessed infinite power, what assurance could the 
disciples have had that he would do as he said ? They 
recognized the true God in the person of Jesus Christ, 
and hence they had faith that his promises would be 
fulfilled, though some doubted for the time, as my brother 
doubts, yet they felt that all was not lost. The faith of 
the women who came to his tomb, demonstrated that the 
promise which had been made, was to be fulfilled ; they 
approached the grave's mouth, an angel descended from 
heaven, removed the stone, that it should offer no seem- 
ing barrier to the completeness of his triumph, when he 
destroyed the powers of darkness, and conquered the last 
enemy, that through him we might also be made partak- 
ers of immortal life. We look upon this as the ground 
of our hope of immortal destiny. We know that he was 
of truly celestial, as he was of mortal origin, and we are 
as truly representatives of the worlds of matter and oi 
mind, and w T e know that that which pertains to the world 
of matter must be subject to decomposition, and that the 
soul, which is indestructible, will rise again to accomplish 
our final triumph. 

The evidence of Jesus' rising is so clear — the angels 
were there : " Why seek ye the living among the dead ? 
He is not here, he is risen ; why came ye here to seek 
him ? " After his resurrection he made himself known 
to Mary, and to the two disciples, and was subsequently 
seen by more than five hundred brethren ; and he also 
mingled with his disciples, and instructed them on the 
nature and extent of his glorious kingdom, and led them 
out to Bethany, where, upon an eminence commanding 
a view of the ethereal heavens, he lifted up his hands 
and blessed them ; and Luke informs us that he was in 
the act of blessing them, when he was parted from them, 
and was carried up into heaven. As they stood gazing, 
angels appeared and gave them assurance that this was 
a final triumph. " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of God 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 221 

coming in the clouds," &c. " In like manner as ye saw 
this Jesus ascend into heaven, so shall he also come 
down." 

These assurances, sir, are the ground of hope to the 
Christian world, that Christ will also descend. And what 
for % To raise to life again his sleeping dead, " for those 
who sleep in Jesus shall God bring with him." We 
console ourselves with the reflection of the essential Di- 
vinity of Jesus Christ. My exhortation, as before, is, 
adhere to this great doctrine, more especially with regard 
to the equality of Jesus Christ with the Father. This is 
the doctrine to which I would have you adhere, and I 
would urge that again, especially as it is the ground of 
your future hopes and ultimate triumph. There is no 
hope of immortality unless it be derived and obtained 
from God, for he only possesses absolute immortality ; 
hence, if we partake of his nature, it must be through 
God, and we receive it by power of God, through Jesus 
Christ. Hence, when time shall be no more ; when 
Christ shall come the second time; when the Lion of 
the tribe of Judah shall appear in his godlike char- 
acter, this we trust and believe : that he will descend into 
the grave of sleeping humanity, and lift up those who 
trusted and confided in him, and these shall have part in 
the first resurrection. And it is upon this ground, that 
the doctrines of future and endless retribution are predi- 
cated. He is the Judge, possessing the essential attri- 
butes of the Divine mind ; to be a perfect judge, he must 
have a perfect knowledge. He must possess omniscience 
that he may be a perfect judge, that he may understand 
all the various relations men sustain to each other, and 
to God. But I have not been able to draw from my 
opponent, what Jesus Christ is to him, although he repre- 
sents him, in a very eloquent manner, as sitting at the 
right hand of God. Heaven is represented as God's 
throne, and earth his footstool ; but if we Hteralize these 
passages, it is passing strange that we have not come in 
contact with the Divine person, if he possesses a phys- 



222 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

ical body ; the one is just as likely to be regarded as a 
physical manifestation as the other. I reverently speak, 
when 1 speak of Jehovah, whether I adore him under 
one, or the three persons in the Godhead, under which 
his infinite perfections are represented ; whether Father, 
Son, or Holy Ghost ; for the title of Jehovah, which 
belongs to God only, is given indiscriminately to the 
Father, Son, and Spirit. This title is given to Jesus in 
one place alone ; hence, when I speak of the Son, my 
brother impeaches us with not making the Son equal with 
the Father. " I honor the Son, even as I honor the 
Father." What does this equalifying phrase signify ? 
Does it signify that the Father is a character eternal, an 
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God, and that 
Jesus, an object of worship, possesses none of these attri- 
butes ? is not omnipotent, neither by inheritance nor dele- 
gation ? is not omniscient ? is not omnipresent ? can not 
be everywhere ? is not eternal ? therefore, did not exist 
in the morning of eternity, nor from all eternity. He did 
not so exist, yet he is entitled to all praise and thanks- 
giving, and my brother quoted the language of Revela- 
tion, which ascribes life, honor, and glory to him, for 
ever and ever ; to which I responded a hearty amen. If 
the apostle says unto him be Might, let all say amen, let 
angels and unborn seraphs say amen, and let men that 
live upon this earth, and bow the knee to one God, the 
Father, respond one hearty amen ! Here, then, we have 
the doctrine of the infinity of Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ 
worthy to be praised through all ages, world without end. 
My brother's closing exhortation I approve. We shall 
have a happy conclusion, I trust, to this discussion, for 
I will say, not that / have a desire to triumph, but for 
the truth as it is in Jesus, that I feel the inspiration of 
all these heavenly truths as I give them to you. I advise 
my good friends, the Reporters, that they may look out 
for manifestations of my warmth ; it is my nature, I 
hope they will excuse my remarks. I have to state dis- 
tinctly, that no proposition has been given up by me. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 223 

What success my brother has had, will be judged of, 
when the work comes out amply reviewed. Christ is 
God, equal with the Father in his Divine nature, in 
substance, power, glory, and eternity ; and in the unity 
of the Godhead there are three persons — the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost ; the one God of Christians, the one 
God of the Bible. This point, I think, will be made 
sufficiently clear. I asserted that the highest seraph that 
blazes before the throne of God, can only be in one place 
at the same time; but Christ says, where two or three 
are gathered together, there I am in their midst. Now, 
if he be in more than one place at the same time, he is 
capable of being in every place. The omnipresence of 
Jesus Christ is therefore sustained beyond all cavil. 

Mr. Summerbell's Fifteenth address : 

Kind Friends — I have alluded to several authors which 
I should have read, had my brother challenged the quo- 
tations. There are some, however, which I desire to 
read extracts from, touching the question under discus- 
sion, and shall proceed to do so at this time. 

I w T ish it ever to be remembered, that I have not, like 
my brother, endeavored to prove my position by authori- 
ties on my own side of the question ; but from most 
unquestionable Trinitarians ; men whose interests, pre- 
judices, and popularity, would all forbid any bias in my 
favor. 

I will now read from the highest authority, to show 
that as late as the year A. D. 380, whether or not the 
Holy Ghost was God ; and I want my brother to explain, 
how those who are now claimed as the most eminent 
Trinitarians of the fourth century, could be so, and yet 
not be decided whether the Son was self-existent, or the 
Holy Ghost a creature. This being the case, it could 
hardly be that the church of which they were the leading 
men, was Trinitarian. 

Neander, Yol. ii, p. 418. "It is remarkable, that at 
the Nicene council the doctrine concerning the Holy 



224 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Spirit, was expressed only in very vague and general 
terms, but this point possesaed, as yet, no very great inte- 
rest in doctrinal polemics, and many who saw their way 
clear to subscribe to the Homoousion, as it respected the 
Son of God, would have scrupled to extend this same 
determination also to the Holy Spirit. The unity of the 
Christian consciousness of God had here so little permea- 
ted as yet, the apprehension of the idea, that Gregory of 
Nazianzen cotild still say, in the year 380, some of our 
theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a mode of the 
Divine Agency, (as, for instance, Lactantius had done in 
a preceding period,) others a creature of God, others God 
himself. Others say, they do not know, themselves, which 
of the two opinions they ought to adopt, out of reverence 
for the Holy Scriptures, which have not clearly explained 
this point." 

This is sufficient to show that the Trinity had not yet 
received its finishing touch. I told my brother that 
I had the highest Trinitarian authority for asserting that 
the Trinity was not at this period a doctrine of the 
church. 

Neander positively says, Vol. i, pp. 571 — 573, that the 
doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to the funda- 
mental articles of the Christian faith ; but that it did, 
from the beginning, constitute the fundamental conscious- 
ness of the Catholic church, and referring to the texts 
usually quoted to support it as a Bible doctrine, shows 
that some of them are forged, and that others of them 
are wrested from their true meaning. 

But the question arises, how could this man be a Trin- 
itarian ? It is very easy to live in a Trinitarian church. 
If a man only consents that he believes the Trinity, he 
may explain it as he pleases. My brother misquoted the 
passage 1 Tim. i, 17. It does not read " The only wise 
God our Saviour ; " but " Now unto the King Eternal, 
Immortal, Invisible, (not the visible Christ, but) the only 
wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever." Here, 
the only wise God is distinguished from Jesus Christ, as 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 225 

invisible and immortal. I want my brother to remember, 
that this invisible One is the only wise God. My brother 
will see, by referring to the first verse, that God is called 
our Saviour in connection with Jesus Christ. I will refer 
my brother to Clarke, on this passage. 

Clarke, 1 Tim. xvii. " ' Now unto the King Eternal, 
Immortal, Invisible, the only wise God, be honor and 
glory for ever and ever, amen.' (Now unto the King 
Eternal.) This burst of thanksgiving and gratitude to 
God, naturally arose from the subject then under his pen 
and eye. God has most wondrously manifested his 
mercy in this beginning of the Gospel, by saving me and 
making me a pattern to all them that shall hereafter 
believe on Christ." 

Thus, my brother's own authorities apply his proof- 
text to the Father. 

There is a text which says, " To the only wise God 
our Saviour." My brother may find it in Jude, ver. 25, 
but it has no reference to Jesus Christ, but to God, who 
saves us by his Son. On this passage I will read Dr. 
Macknight, high Presbyterian authority, superior to 
Clarke, in all but oriental learning, and consequently, 
superior here. 

Macknight translates Jude i, 25, as follows: ^To the 
wise God alone, our Saviour, be glory and majesty, 
strength and right, both now and throughout all ages, 
amen." He comments thus: "To the wise God alone, 
that this is the true translation, see Rom. xvi, 27." 

"(Our Saviour.) From this appellation it is argued, 
that the wise God, to whom this doxology is addressed, is 
Jesus Christ, whose proper title is our Saviour, and who 
is called God in other passages of Scripture, particularly 
Rom. ix, 5, where he is styled, ' God over all blessed 
for ever? Nevertheless, as in some passages of Scrip- 
ture, particularly Luke i, 47 ; 1 Tim. i, 1 ; Titus i, 3, 
the Father is styled Our Saviour. This argument like- 
wise is doubtful." — Macknight on the Epistles, Eom. 
xvi, 27. 



226 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Macknight classes Jude, ver. 25 ; Eom. xvi, 27, and 
1 Tim. i, 17, and treats them altogether, in each case 
applying the title God, to God, and not to the Son of 
God. I hope that my brother will cease to quote texts, 
and apply them in such a manner, since it only puts me 
to the trouble of refuting him. 

As my brother still insists that there can be no medium 
between God and the creature, and that it is impossible 
in the nature of things, but that the Son of God must be 
either the one or the other, I will now present you w T ith 
the views of some English bishops, much more learned 
than either of us — at least than myself 1 — I do not know 
the extent of my brother's attainments. Mosh. Yol. ii, 
314. " Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of great abilities, judg- 
ment and learning, who, in 1724, was accused of alter- 
ing and modifying the ancient and orthodox doctrine of 
the Trinity. But it must argue a great want of equity 
and candor, to rank this eminent man in the class of 
Arians — taking that term in its proper and natural sig- 
nification — for he only maintained what is commonly 
called the Arminian subordination, which has been, and 
still is, adopted by some of the greatest men in England, 
and even by some of the most learned bishops in that 
country. This doctrine he illustrated with greater care 
and perspicuity than any had done before him, and taught 
that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in na- 
ture, and different in rank, authority and subordination." 
— Applegate's quarto edition, p. 654. 

Dr. Clarke denied the self-existence of the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, and maintained their derivation from, 
and subordination to, the Father ; and yet maintained 
that they were of the same nature. Such, precisely, is 
the Christian doctrine. Does my brother think that be- 
ing three in person, but one in nature, would make them 
one God ? This would no more teach that God is one, 
than mankind are one. We are all partakers of the 
same nature ; but we are not one man on that account. 
There is no enlightened Christian who will deny that the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 227 

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same nature ; 
but we do deny that three persons are all God. 

I want my brother to remember these authorities — not 
mine, but from his own side of the house: yet they 
agree with me, and differ with my brother. I leave them 
to settle the question in dispute among themselves. 

My brother quotes Gen. i, 1, u In the beginning God," 
(Heb. EloMm) he admits that Elohim should not be 
translated in the plural ; although he quotes authority to 
prove that it should ! Dr. Clarke admits, on Gen. iii, 5, 
that it should not be translated Gods, but God. My 
brother refers to Gen. i, 26, " Let us make man." I have 
no doubt, but God was here speaking to his Son, by 
whom he made the worlds, Heb. i, 1-3. But my brother 
does not believe that God had a Son at that time, nor 
until four thousand years after. 

My brother avoids stating whether those honors, which 
he referred to in his exhortation this morning, should be 
paid to the human nature of Jesus Christ ; that is an im- 
portant point, which I do not wish him to evade. 

My brother says, that Christ paid down, as the price 
of our redemption, a perfect human nature, as good as 
Adam, which became of infinite merit, by being offered 
upon the altar of divinity ; but Clarke says, that God 
will no more accept of man's blood in sacrifice, than he 
will swine's blood. 1 want my brother to reconcile these 
contradictions ; and also, to tell us to whom Christ paid 
the price of our redemption ? Here, my brother became 
very eloquent in his discourse — as he often does — and I 
feel very good under it ; but I want him to come up to 
the question, and meet the arguments involved in these 
propositions. In defiance of the very best orthodox ex- 
pounders of the text in Isaiah, " Unto us a child i§ born, 
unto us a Son is given," &c, he maintains, that the child 
born and son given, was the man Christ Jesus, u very 
man, human nature ; " and that the mighty God was the 
divine nature which dwelt in that man, which is nothing 
more nor less than Socinianism. But the text says, that 



228 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

the child born should be called the Mighty God. He 
says, that there is harmony in the three persons in the 
Godhead ! Harmony ! And that Christ must possess 
Omnipotence to create the world. Why will not my 
brother answer my arguments on this point, instead of 
passing them by and making random assertions ? The 
Bible says, that "God created the worlds by his Son." 
It does not say, Jesus Christ, but Son, Heb. i, 1. My 
brother wishes to avoid that, because he does not believe 
that God had a Son then. Could not God create the 
worlds by his Son ? If you doubt it, you doubt the om- 
nipotence of God. 

He says, that I "admitted that Christ possesses Omni- 
potent power, and that this is the only point which I 
have given up." 

I thank him for the compliment, that this is the only 
point I have given up ; but I do not admit any such 
thing, and I have given nothing up, as yet ! He again 
quotes, " I have power to lay down my life," and thinks 
that it was the man part of Christ that died, but the di- 
vine nature gave it this power. Unitarians believe pre- 
cisely the same. But he defines what he means by the 
Trinity. He says, that God is only one ; yet he is the 
God of nature, the God of providence, and the God of 
grace. Yery well ! Why did he not go on, and say, he 
is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob ? but surely this does not prove the Trinity. 

I will now present some additional arguments on the 
Holy Spirit, showing that there was no real Trinity yet, 
down to 380. The most eminent Bishops thought, as 
they found the name God nowhere used expressly of 
the Holy Spirit, they would not venture so to name it ; 
Hilary, now claimed as a most eminent Trinitarian, know- 
ing it only as the Spirit of God, (Nean. ii, 419); while 
others supposed it to be an angel or agent, and all, that 
both it and the Son w r ere subordinate to the Father. 
(Nean. i, 609.) The Bible makes the Holy Ghost bear 
the same relation to God, that our spirit does to us. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 229 

"What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit 
of a man which is in him ; even so the things of God, 
knoweth no man (no one) but the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 
ii, 11. Now who will say that a man's spirit is a distinct 
and separate person from the man ? Job xxvi, 13, says, 
" By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens ; his hand 
hath formed the crooked serpent;" and Ps. xxxiii, 6, 
u By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and 
all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Ps. 
viii, 3, u The heavens, the work of thy fingers," &c. 

Now, here we see that there would be the same con- 
sistency in saying that God's hand, word, breath, and 
fingers, were also distinct persons in the Godhead, as the 
Holy Ghost, for the same work is performed by each. 
Luke xi, 20. Jesus says : " If I, with the finger of God, 
cast out devils ;" but in Matt, xii, 28, he says : " If I cast 
out devils by the spirit of God ;" now there is the same 
reason for making the finger of God a separate person, 
that my brother gave for making the Holy Ghost a sepa- 
rate person. He said that the Father begat Christ, and 
the Holy Ghost begat Christ, so it was as much a person 
as the Father. So here, devils were cast out by the 
finger of God, and by the Holy Ghost. There is just as 
much proof, my friends, that the finger of God is a sepa- 
rate and distinct person in the Trinity, as that the Holy 
Ghost is. That the spirit of God is possessed by others, 
is no proof that it is a person. The spirit of men, is often 
thus possessed by others. In Luke i, 17, it says that John 
the Baptist would not only be filled witl^the Holy Ghost, 
but that he should go before the Lord in the spirit and 
power of Elias. In 2 Kings ii, 15, we find that the 
spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha, after Elijah had gone 
up into heaven. In 1 Cor. v, 3, Paul says: "For I 
verily as absent in body, but present in spirit." There is 
just as much proof that the spirit of a man is a distinct 
person, as that the spirit of God is. 

If the holy Ghost be the supreme God, then God has 
been seen in a bodily shape, like a dove. — Luke iii, 22. 



230 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

And men are baptized with the supreme God, and with 
fire. — Luke iii, 16. 

And God anointed Jesus Christ with the supreme 
God.— Acts x, 38. 

The Holy Ghost assumed the form of cloven, fiery 
tongues, Acts ii, 3 ; but this could not be true of God. 
God gives us of his spirit ; but God would not give the 
supreme God. Jesus sends the Holy Ghost ; but not the 
supreme God. 

I now come again to a difficulty of my brother's, w T hich 
he cannot explain away. He says that " The Holy 
Ghost begat Jesus Christ, and that the Father begat 
him," so that there is just as much proof that the Holy 
Ghost is a person, as that the Father is. Here then are 
two persons begetting Christ, according to my brother ! 
and this is true, if his system be true. Two persons 
begat Christ of the Virgin ! Christ has two fathers then ! 
What a system ! My brother may evade this, but he 
cannot, and never will, explain it. Mark him well, he 
will not ! 

I will now present another unanswerable argument. 
God is a spirit. John iv, 24. Now if the Holy Ghost 
is a distinct person from the Father, here are two spirits. 
That the pre-existent Logos is another person, my brother 
contends, and that it is a spirit, he will not deny ; here 
then are three spirits. The Father is a spirit ; the Son 
is a spirit, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and all equal 
in substance, power, and eternity. Well now, the Son 
has a spirit, for /Sod hath sent forth the spirit of his Son 
into your hearts, crying, Abba Father. Gal. iv, 6. That 
his was a pre-existent spirit, is proved by its prompting 
the prophets. 1 Pet. i, 11. If any man have not the 
spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Eo. viii, 9. This makes 
four spirits. God also has a spirit. Gen. i, 2. The spirit 
of God. And if the Holy Ghost be equal to the two other 
persons, then it must have a spirit ; here are six spirits ; 
and, according to my brother's reasoning, six persons. 
Or let him tell us the difference between the spirituality 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 231 

of the first person, and the third, or why the third per- 
son should not have a spirit, as well as the first. Yet 
his Trinitarian fathers down to 380, did not know whether 
the Spirit was an angel of God, or an agent. My brother 
has all along been saying that he will take up my argu- 
ments, and answer them in a regular course, at a proper 
time. Now this is the proper time and place. Monday 
is the last day on this question, therefore, do not put it 
off until Monday, for I will give you enough on Monday 
to answer Monday. I want my brother to answer my 
argument about the two persons passing over omni- 
potence to the third. He is behindhand upon many 
points. I want him to satisfactorily explain, how Christ 
is the eternal Son of God, or if not, how there was a Trin- 
ity before there was a Son. My brother cannot answer 
my arguments, nor the many passages of Scripture. I 
want the congregation to mark these things, and to bear 
in remembrance the scores of passages to which no an- 
swer has been given. He exhorts his brethren not to 
give up their faith. Don't let him alarm you, by telling 
you that you can only be saved by holding his interpreta- 
tion of the Bible. If you believe the Bible, it is enough ; 
fear not but you will receive salvation, if you walk accord- 
ingly. Who, I ask, can make a doctrine better than the 
doctrine of the Bible ? or Articles of Keligion, better 
than those laid down in the Holy Scriptures? Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit 
of God ; this is the plain and evident teaching of the word 
of God ; but my brother does not believe it, nor does he 
believe his own creed. He promised to defend the equal- 
ity of the Son ; but now he admits that the Son is the 
u very man," and not eternal, and consequently, not God, 
properly, at all, and puts in the place of the Son, the 
Logos, or Word of God — not one of the Trinity at all. 
Do not let my brother make you believe that your salva- 
tion depends on faith in any such human exposition ; but 
believe the Bible, and you will be saved. 



232 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Mr. Flood's Fifteenth reply : 

My brother is very anxious that I should catch up with 
him, because he wishes to fill up his half hour. I can 
not conceive of any other reason he has for it. It is pain- 
ful for me to have to complain ; and I am sorry that my 
brother complains that his opponent does not keep up 
with him. If it is true, this intelligent audience will 
ascertain the fact ; I should be willing to appeal to the 
audience to determine how far I have left my brother 
unanswered. He wishes to know whether his opponent 
admits that the Father is a Spirit. He does ; whether his 
opponent admits that the Word, or Logos, is a Spirit — he 
certainly does ; whether the Holy Ghost, which is the third 
person of the Trinity, is a Spirit — he certainly does ; for 
he is termed a Holy Spirit, and correctly, too. Hence our 
God is a Spirit : for our God is a Spirit, and they that 
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
This, perhaps, will be quite satisfactory, as I have an- 
swered in categorical form. I present an argument on 
the personality of the Holy Ghost, to prove that he pos- 
sesses attributes essential to the divine nature. "Jesus 
answered, and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto 
thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he can not enter into the kingdom of God." John 
iii, 5. Here the work of regenerating the heart — of re- 
newing man, and producing the new birth, is attributed 
to the Spirit of God. What does my brother understand 
the Holy Spirit to be ? He says it does not possess per- 
sonality. He says there were some at the Nicene coun- 
cil who did not believe in the personality of the Spirit. 
He is very careful to use the word separate, when we use 
the term connected or united. This is very convenient 
for him, no doubt. We assert the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit to be equal ; hence, if they are equal in the divine 
nature, then, of course, they are equal in substance, equal 
in power, equal in eternity, equal in glory. They can 
not be separate in the sense in which he designs to make 
it appear ; he would desire to separate our only true God. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 233 

"We hold that they are only one God ; and if any one of the 
number be not God, in all the essential elements of that 
nature, we have no God. We invite attention to the 
fact, that the Holy Spirit does possess eternity. Heb. ix, 
14, " How much more shall the blood of Christ, who, 
through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot 
to God." Here the apostle declares the Holy Spirit to 
be the "Eternal Spirit." My brother would have us 
substitute " Influence," or "Holy Influence," for u Holy 
Ghost." Were we to ^dmit this change we should read, 
"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Influence ;" or, allowing that the word 
"Holy" should previously occur, it would be, "I bap- 
tize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Influence." It is the most that my opponent 
can claim that the Holy Spirit does possess person- 
ality. Omniscience is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. Rom. 
xv, 19, " Through the mighty signs and wonders, by the 
power of the Spirit of God ; so that from Jerusalem and 
round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the 
Gospel of Christ." Now it was by the power of the 
Spirit of God, that he preached the gosj)el through that 
region. We invite attention to the truth that the Holy 
Spirit possesses omniscience as well as omnipotence. 
1 Cor. ii, 10, 11, " But God hath revealed them unto us by 
his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things ; yea, the deep 
things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a 
man, save the Spirit of man, which is in him ? Even so 
the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of 
God." Here omniscience is attributed to the Holy Spirit, 
knowing the tilings of God. We may have occasion 
to refer to this argument again. 

On the word Elohim he complains that I did not quote 
passages in support of my argument. I gave him chap- 
ter and verse. Here is the work, that he may search it out 
if he desires. Watson presents more than thirty passages 
where the word does occur in its plural form. Clarke fol- 
lows in the same argument. I did it for the purpose of 
20 



234 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

letting him know the signification of the term. The pas- 
sage might justly have been rendered Gods, This is an 
argument drawn from Clarke. My brother makes a 
reference to Timothy. I have not seen any thing in my 
brother's remarks bearing upon that passage which affects 
it in the slightest degree. He inquires, how can a finite 
creature make an infinite atonement ? If my brother had 
consented not to pass over the same ground more than 
once, he would have had his barrel more nearly emptied 
than he conceives it to be. I took the position that he 
offered a sacrifice of a perfect humanity, mysteriously 
united with the divinity ; he offered the sacrifice of that 
humanity ; and the connection of the humanity with the 
divinity, gave to it an infinite merit, by which an ade- 
quate atonement was made for the sins of the whole 
world. My brother now denies that he gave up that 
Jesus did possess omnipotence. I understood it as im- 
plied. He would not admit that he possessed it ; he 
now says that he is under no obligation to say whether 
he did or did not. Will he now take the position to dis- 
prove that Jesus possessed omnipotent power ? I assume 
that he does ; that he is possessed of all power in heaven 
and earth ; that he possesses the right, and holds the 
reins of universal empire; he is head over all things to 
the church. When he is head over all things, I can not 
conceive of any thing over which he is not head, unless, 
as my brother says, all may be part ! Now, here I con- 
ceive that if Christ possesses all power in heaven, and all 
power in earth, and that he is over all, there can be no 
power, no superior power ; and if no superior power, no 
power that is equal — that two almighty powers, I hold, 
can not exist at the same time in the universe. I have 
shown, among the powers possessed, was the power to 
give life to the highest order of heavenly existence — the 
source of all life on earth, of all life in all worlds — this 
is the power which must be possessed, to possess all 
power in heaven and earth. With what order of intel- 
ligences, I should like to know, does my brother associate 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 235 

Jesus Christ ? With God, making him one with God, 
in the true and proper sense, as to his perfections ? Or 
with angels, any of the order of angels % or with human- 
ity, with men ? I should like to know what character he 
intends to attach to Jesus Christ ? After four days' dis- 
cussion, I know not that he has attached any. That he 
is equal with the Father in power, glory, and eternity ; 
that he is God, we have declared out and openly. Now 
I should be pleased if he would point out to us. The 
Son of God is an indefinite term, unless he explains what 
he means by it properly ; for angels are said to be sons 
of God ; men are said to be sons of God by creation, by 
preservation, and by redemption. Those who have ac- 
cepted the terms of redemption, stand in this endearing 
relation, acknowledged his sons — as his adopted ones. I 
have yet to learn where my brother places his Saviour ? 
what he makes of him ? whether he be omnipotent or 
not ? He says, " My argument is here ; he has not an- 
swered it ; he can not answer it. If I bear witness of 
myself, my witness is not true." Iiiave not insinuated 
that my brother manifests any want of argument, except 
that which necessarily proceeds from the feebleness and 
untenableness of his cause. 

I quoted, yesterday, a number of authorities, showing 
that this doctrine of the equality of the Father with the 
Son, was held from Ignatius, A. D. 107 — that all that 
was essential to the doctrine of the absolute, essential 
equality of Jesus Christ, was clearly taught ; and espe- 
cially the words of our proposition, with regard to the 
equality of Christ with the Father. Hence, I quoted 
this authority to show, that all that was essential to the 
character of Jesus Christ, as God, was to be found in the 
testimony of Ignatius as early as 107 — long before the 
Nicene creed was compiled. I also quoted Justin Mar- 
tyr, embracing the essential doctrine of the Deity of 
Christ, as well as of the Trinity ; for the three persons 
are deified, whom we worship and adore as the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, and as Christ says, are to be wor- 
shiped in spirit and in truth. 



236 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

According to Macknight's rendering, Jesus Christ can 
not be like God, and be an inferior being. He is like 
God in all the essential elements of his nature, if Mac- 
knight's rendering is to be taken, which I do not admit, 
although a respectable authority. 

Gregory's Evidences, p. 337. " Athenagors, who 
flourished in the second century, speaks of Christians 
who made small account of the present life, but were 
intent only upon contemplating God and knowing his 
Word, who is from him ; what union the Son has icith 
the Father ; ichat communication the Father has with 
the Son ; what the Spirit is, and what the union and dis- 
tinction are of such : so united the Spirit, the Son, and the 
Father." 

Here, these three persons are spoken of at this early 
period, in a very distinct manner. 

" Cyprian, when arguing against the invalidity of 
heretical baptisms, inquires how the subject of such 
baptism can become the temple of God, saying: If ye be 
thereby made the temple of God, I would ask, of what 
Divine person is it ? Is it of God, the Creator ? He 
could not be so if he believed not in him. Is it of 
Christ ? Neither can he be his temple while he denies 
Christ to be God. Is it then of the Holy Spirit ? But 
since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit have 
friendship with him that is at enmity with either Father 
or Son ? This father abounds with passages in which 
the Divinity of Christ is asserted." 

I supposed, in the beginning, that my opponent, being 
a Bible man, would present Bible argument, and that he 
would perhaps try to show by his own skill, the perfect 
harmony of passages maintaining the different positions 
which he assumes. 

Mr. Summerbell's Sixteenth address : 

My brother says that I have not brought Scripture to 
prove my position. I have cited him to over thirteen 
thousand texts in classes, giving him sample texts repre- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 237 

senting those of each class, agreeing to bring forward 
the whole if he would examine them ; but he has hardly 
noticed the specimen texts. I have quoted some thirteen 
hundred texts, for many of them giving him chapter and 
verse, of which he has hardly replied to fifty. And yet, 
he assures you that I am not a Bible man. Truly, there 
is no accounting for tastes. He quotes Ignatius, to prove 
the doctrine of the Trinity. But he finds no Trinity 
there. Ignatius speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, just as I would, and my brother thinks that this 
proves the Trinity, and thinks it truly wonderful to find 
evidence as early as that ; while, according to him, it had 
been believed since the days of Adam. But from w T hom 
does my brother quote ? Not from history, but from a 
sectarian book written to prove the Trinity — a book of 
no reputation at all ; very unlike the works which I read, 
Neander, Mosheim, Macknight, &c. But he takes up 
this ex parte evidence, and relies upon it, just as if I 
should prove my positions by books written by our own 
ministers. I will now read you a few more extracts from 
the fathers. 

Polycarp, A. D. 108, in whose words my brother 
vainly attempted to find a Trinity, says, praying to God 
" Almighty God, Father of thy beloved Son Jesus 
Christ ; " but says nothing of a Trinity. Clement, A. D. 
96, an Apostolic father, says, " We adore him as being 
the Son of God." Justin Martyr says, " There is one 
God, who manifested himself by Jesus Christ, his Son, 
who is his Eternal Word." — Milner i, 93. Hegesippus, 
the only historian before the fourth century, is now con- 
demned as a Unitarian. My brother read the fathers, 
but he found no Trinity there. Mosheim says, Vol. i, p. 
128, that at the council of Constantinople, " A hundred 
and fifty bishops gave the finishing touch to what the 
council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full 
and determinate manner, the doctrine of three persons 
in one God." Mosheim, Vol. i, 128. Thus he agrees 
with Barnes, who repudiates the idea that the Nicene 



238 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

creed is Trinitarian. But the procession of the Holy 
Ghost was not yet settled in the ninth century, as Mo- 
sheim teaches, Vol. i, p. 225. 

Nor was the two natures of Christ settled till the 
seventh century. Gibbon, VoL iv, 422, .says, under this 
date " the creed was finally settled, which teaches that 
two wills are harmonized in the person of Christ." Gib- 
bon was not a Christian, but he was a learned and able 
man, and is an authentic historian ; and if my brother 
wants his authority vouched for, he may go to Barnes on 
Revelations, who says, that he derived more light respect- 
ing the book of Revelation, from Gibbon, than from any 
other writer. My brother is a good speaker ; he possesses 
talents of a very respectable order, but he fails in the 
argument, and in his main efforts is but beating the air ; 
for it is impossible to prove a theory unless he has 
something to prove it by. But lie has not been able to 
bring one word to support the Trinity yet, either from 
the Bible or ancient history, if we except the heathen 
record referred to by Clarke; while I prove every position 
by those whom he claims as his own authorities. Justin 
Martyr, whom my brother claims as a Trinitarian father, 
" conceived of the Spirit (not as a third person and God, 
but) as subordinate to the Father and the Son, standing 
in some relation to the angels." Origen describes it as 
the " only begotten of the Father through the Son." 
And Neander farther states, that the prevailing opinion 
in the western church was, " one Divine essence in the 
Father and the Son, but at the same time a subordination 
in relation of the Son to the Father." Neander, Vol. i, 
pp. 605, 608. You see that these could not be Trinita- 
rians, and if these were not, then there were no Trinita- 
rians yet in the church. 

My brother does not like my reminding you of the 
arguments he has not answered. I can not help it, but 
still call upon him to answer them. He did not prove 
that the Holy Ghost was a distinct person from the 
Father, and God, which he should have proved. He is 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 239 

to prove that each of the three is a distinct person and 
one God. To prove that they were three infinites united 
to make one infinite, is as much as to say that a part 
is as great as the whole. 

He thinks, that I would desire to separate the persons 
of the Godhead. No, I would not. There is but one 
person in the Godhead. I believe in one undivided God, 
the great eternal fountain of all existence, and one only 
begotten Son of God. I do not believe that Jesus Christ 
is a second person in the Godhead. Nor does my bro- 
ther truly believe that Christ is equal with God, but that 
he is, as respects his divine nature. Jimeson, his Ex- 
ponent of the Twenty -five Articles, says, " God and the 
two other persons in the Trinity." This is what I call 
separating them. 

He says that he holds to the plural form of Elohim, 
and mentions some thirty passages to prove that it should 
be translated Gods. Thus he at first denied, that he had 
more than one God; but now, it is Elohim, the Gods! 
Strange theory. 

He says, that the finite humanity was sacrificed upon 
the altar of divinity ; but he does not prove it, nor is it 
true. Still he cleaves to the man sacrifice ; yet Clarke 
says, that God will no more accept of man's blood, than 
he will swine's blood. He still says, that Jesus possessed 
Omnipotence, but does not prove it ; but Jesus says, " I 
can of mine own self do nothing," and I must believe 
Jesus. He says, that if all tilings are put under Jesus, 
then God must be under him, or all, means part. My 
brother is arguing against the Bible. Paul says, "Then 
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father — when he shall have 
put down all rule, and authority, and power, for he must 
reign till he hath put all things under his feet ; the last 
enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put 
all things under his feet. But when he saith all thing3 
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted that 
did put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 24-28. Now 



240 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

let him settle it with Paul. He says, almighty power 
can not exist in two beings ; but he has it existing in 
three persons in his Trinity. 

Now I want him to show, why it can not exist in two 
as well as three ? He asks me, where I place my Jesus ? 
I answer, just where the Bible places him. 

The Bible tells me, that " he is the Son of God, seated 
at God's right hand." Mv brother thinks this an orien- 
tal figure of speech. Did the dying Stephen see an ori- 
ental figure of speech ? He says that I will not define 
what I mean by the Son of God. Have I not said, 
that Jesus was God's Son ? that is what I mean. Has 
he yet defined his three persons, and told what three they 
are ; three men, three angels, or three Gods. My brother 
quotes Jesus' words, u If I bear witness of myself, my 
witness is not true ; " but on his theory, did not Jesus 
bear witness of himself? Perhaps this is the reason why 
he w r ill not believe him ! And was not my brother bear- 
ing witness of himself? 

My brother has not answered my historical argument, 
that the anti-Nicene churches all held to the subordina- 
tion of the Son to the Father. He has not explained 
how it came, that all the first kings, historians, fathers, 
nations, and councils were anti-Trinitarian. 

He has not told us whether he will worship the very 
man part of his Christ, and the body of his God. He 
says he worships him all as God — this is what the apostle 
condemns as idolatry — worshiping the "very man," the 
creature as the Creator. When he calls Jesus God, he 
only means that God was in him — he don't mean that 
the dying Jesus w r as God. Whether the man Christ 
Jesus possessed infinite attributes, he has not deigned to 
tell us. His own position, "If God gave Christ all 
power," &c, that this passing over of all power annihi- 
lates God, which I turned upon him, by showing that he 
made the divinity give the humanity all power, and so 
the humanity became God — and thus, his own logic anni- 
hilated his God — he has not satisfactorily cleared up. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 241 

My arguments on the personal pronouns, I, Me, My, 
Thee, Thy, Thou, &c, he has not answered. He denies 
that the divine Saviour is the Son of God. He admits 
that the Child born, Is. ix, 6, was not God, but that the 
mighty God was God — doctrine that Socinians agree with 
him in. 

My brother quoted Gen.: "Let us make man," and 
cited me to several similar texts which he did not read, 
as proof that God, or Elohim, should be rendered Gods ; 
but if my brother has any other texts, let him quote them. 
I have no doubt that God here spoke to his Son, by whom 
he made the worlds. But as my brother does not believe 
that God had a Son, he thinks that God was talking to 
himself. My brother quoted his Discipline that the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost were united in God — very 
God and very man — the God of the Bible ; but that is 
not Bible. 

My brother, in his long exhortation this morning, care- 
fully avoided telling us whether these honors were ascribed 
to the Lamb that was slain. I still wait to know T if he 
will worship the Jesus that died for him. He quoted 
1 Tim. i, 17, "Now to the King Eternal, Immortal, In- 
visible ; the only wise God, our Saviour" and called 
my attention to it. Now I gave it my attention, and 
found the words " our Saviour " w T ere not in the text. 
The text is thus against my brother, by calling the invis- 
ible God the only wise God. Clarke, his own authority, 
says that God thus saves us, &c, " making me (Christ) a 
pattern to all them that shall hereafter believe on me." 
Thus my* brother quotes, first his Discipline, and then 
misquotes Scripture to prove his position. Come, come, 
brother, if you have any Trinity present it, or else confess 
that you can not. Again, my brother says, that Christ 
paid down the price of our redemption, a perfect human 
nature ; yet Clarke says that God will no more accept 
man's blood in sacrifice, than swine's blood. Beside, I 
ask my brother how a finite human nature could pay an 
infinite demand ? I know that my brother is tired of 
hearing this, but he must bear it. 
21 



242 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

My argument this morning, proving that his theory 
plainly made three Gods, my brother carefully avoided. 
I now again urge him to answer it. The debate is going 
before the world, and his good talk will not supply the 
place of argument. My brother still continues to be lay- 
ing my arguments over to be answered in the future ; 
but we have but one more day. I urge him to answer 
them now : now is the time ! My brother carefully 
avoided my argument on the personality. He says there 
is harmony in the three persons in the Godhead ! ! ! Some 
Trinitarians, however, think differently, and say that one 
of them killed the other; and quote Zech., "Awake, O 
sword, against my shepherd," to prove it. lie says Christ 
must possess omnipotence to create the world. It would 
be much better to answer my arguments on omnipotence, 
than to make random assertions. « The Bible tells us that 
God created the worlds by Jesus Christ — not that Jesus 
Christ created them alone, or by his own power. 

But my brother says, that Heb. i, 3, teaches that he 
upholds all things by the word of his own power. No, 
my brother, I proved to you that it was God's power. 
He says that I admitted that Christ did not possess omni- 
potent power. I admitted that he had not proved it. I 
never said that he did. On the "power to lay down his 
life," he now says that the divine nature had power to 
lay down the life of the human nature, and power to 
take it again. This all Socinians admit — that the divine 
nature, God in Christ, had this power. Again and again 
he says that God is the God of creation, providence, 
and God of redemption. He may just as well say the 
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob. 

When I proved to him that Paul was present in spirit, 
when absent in body; instead of admitting that he was 
wrong in challenging such proof, he said, or asserted, 
that the highest seraph in heaven could not be present 
in more than one place at the same time. Neither my 
brother nor I can tell the extent of the powers of celestial 
spirits. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 243 

I will now continue my quotations from the fathers, 
by which you can not fail seeing that they were not Trini- 
tarians; but, in the main, evidently agreed with us. I 
will first quote — 

Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. u I will endeavor to 
show that he who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and 
Moses, and who is called God in Scripture, is different 
from the God who ?nade all things; numerically 
different, but the same in will. For I say that he never 
made any thing but what that God who made all things, 
and above whom there is no God, willed that he should 
do and say." Strom., Lib. 6, 646. 

" In uttering a word we beget a word." Ibid. 226. 

" In the beginning, before all creatures God begat from 
himself a certain reasonable power, called the Glory of 
God, sometimes the Lord, and Logos ; because he is sub- 
servient to the Father's will, and was begotten at the 
Father's pleasure." Ed. Thirlby, p. 266. 

Theophilus says : " When God said let us make man, 
he spoke to nothing but his own Logos or Wisdom. Be- 
fore any thing was made, God had the Logos for his 
council. When he proceeded to produce, then he emit- 
ted the Logos — the first-born of every creature." Ad 
Autolycum, Lib. 2, p. 129. 

Irenjeus says: "If any one asks us how is the Son 
produced from the Father, we tell him that whether it be 
called generation, muncupation, or derpation, or by what- 
ever other name, this ineffable generation is called, no one 
knows it; neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, Saturninus, 
Bassillidus, angels or archangels, principalities or pow- 
ers, but only the Father who begat, and the Son who is 
begotten." Lib. 2, ch. 48, p. 176. 

Tertullian says: "Before all things God was alone, 
but not absolutely alone ; for he had with him his own 
reason, since God is a rational being. This reason the 
Greeks called Logos, which term we render c Sermo.' 
You will say what is speech (Logos,) beside a w T ord or 
sound, unsubstantial and incorporeal: nothing unsub- 



244 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

stantial or incorporeal can proceed from God. When 
did this speech assume its form and dress ? its sound and 
voice? When God said, Let there be light. This is the 
perfect maturity of the Word, which proceeded from God; 
from this time making him equal to himself, from which 
procession he became his Son, his iirst-born and only- 
begotten ; begotten before all worlds : the Son is the 
fermo, the other angels, Spiritus Dei. There is a great 
difference between the Son of God and the other angels." 
Praxeam, ch. 5, p. 502-3, and in L. sec. 8, p. 371. 

Tertullian further says, "God was not always a Father 
or a Judge ; since he could not be a Father before he had 
a Son, nor a judge before sin. There was a time when 
both the Son and sin were not." Chap. 3, 334. 

Lactantius says : "And God, before making the world, 
produced a holy and incorruptible Spirit, which he might 
call his Son ; and afterward by him created innumerable 
other spirits, called angels. Christ taught us (that) one 
God alone (is) to be worshiped, neither did he ever call 
himself God." Just., Lib. 4, p. 264. 

Hilary, who w r rote after the council of Nice, says, 
God the Father is the cause of all — without beginning 
and solitary ; but the Son was produced by the Father, 
without time, and was created and founded before the 
ages. He was not before he was born, but he was born 
without time ; he alone subsists from the Father alone." 
Lib. 459. 

Eusebius says : " If this makes them apprehend lest we 
should seem to introduce two Gods, let them know that 
though we do, indeed, acknowledge the Son to be God, 
yet there is absolutely but one God, even he who is alone, 
without origin and unbegotten." Clarke on the Trinity, 
p. 307. 

Thus my brother's appeal to the fathers is entirely 
against him. I insist upon it that my brother clear up 
these remarkable arguments ! and answer the evidences 
and arguments which I have produced. 

I plead for my Lord and Saviour the Son of God, for 



cc 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 245 

an undivided Jesus ; I want none of this cutting and di- 
viding my Saviour — to me he is all divine. How can I 
but worship him! God commands it — and when I look at 
his bleeding side, his temples torn, his pierced hands and 
feet, and remember that this body was prepared for him 
that he might die for me — that he left the courts of glory 
and took upon him this form of a servant — that he was 
rich, and for our sakes became poor, and was made a 
little lower than the angels that he mi^ht die for me, I 
must worship him. Not simply the divine nature that 
was in him do I honor — God is in all his saints ; but 
Jesus, himself, the divine Son of God. 

My brother can preach an excellent sermon. He ex- 
horts well ; he often calls heaven to witness that he is 
not defeated; he says that your salvation depends upon 
your cleaving to the creed; but all this does not answer 
the argument. He talks well about death and heaven ; 
but this is only to convey your minds away from the 
argument ; and he will continue thus to endeavor to carry 
your minds away, in religious feeling and exhortation, 
to the end, if you will permit him. 

Mr. Flood's Sixteenth reply : 

We have come to the day of preparation, and nearly 
to the evening of that day, and in a little while, your 
attention will be called to other matters — to the prepara- 
tion for God's Sabbath. I would not desire, in the slight- 
est degree, to interfere with any religious or devotional 
feeling, that ought to exist on such an occasion, and I 
was quite pleased with the warm and tender address of 
my brother, to hear him exhort so well ; but, unhappily, 
we shall become accustomed to these exhortations, if they 
happen to be in the same words, and they will lose their 
point when we come to be familiar with them. Let me 
invite your attention to what he regards as argument. 
The references to Gregory's Evidences, I quoted in 
support of the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the 
Trinity, as maintained by the church in the first century, 



246 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

commencing at the first, and extending to the assembling 
of the Nicene council. He quotes Mosheim, and says, 
that the doctrine of the Trinity received its finishing 
touch about this time. Now this expression merely 
referred to some differing views that prevailed — ques- 
tions that arose out of this — they not yet being properly 
informed ; and it was thus that the doctrine was officially 
and authoritatively settled in favor of the Trinity ; and 
this is what he means by receiving its finishing touch. 
My brother thinks, Gregory is not respectable authority. 
Does he ? I will not say that the authorities quoted by 
him are not respectable. I have here a respectable 
authority, I believe, the Rev. John Brown, the author of 
the Bible Dictionary. My brother has not relieved him- 
self of his difficulty about three persons in the Godhead, 
constituting the Trinity, and composing the one living 
and true God of the Bible, in whom we profess faith, 
and contends we maintain the idea of three separate and 
distinct beings; a thing which has not once been ad- 
vanced by his opponent during the discussion. I have 
continually insisted that there is only one God, in es- 
sence, power, and glory ; yet he will try to put words in 
my mouth that I never uttered, and that I would not 
permit to pass my lips ; it is that which cometh out of 
man that polluteth him. 

I allow my brother credit for believing in one great 
God, and one inferior Saviour, who, in heaven sits, by 
some means, on the right hand of his father. He has 
admitted that the Son does not possess the essential ele- 
ment of divine nature. 

I pressed him, in my last remarks, to know whether 
he was human, divine, or angelic. To no one question 
does he deign to reply ; yet he pleads with the audience 
that his arguments have not been answered. His argu- 
ments have been quotations from Trinitarian divines. I 
differ from them on some points. I differ from Watson 
on the eternal Sonship, who assumes that Christ is eter- 
nal Son ; that the same person was made flesh, and came 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 247 

to dwell among us, and we beheld his glory. I ask my 
friend to tell me what Christ is ? I believe him to be 
the very eternal God, and very man ; I believe the eter- 
nal God to be united in one person in Jesus Christ, 
with the very man ; and that this very God and very 
man is one person — the second person in the Trinity — 
equal in substance, power, glory, and eternity ; as such, 
he possesses all the attributes of the divine nature, such 
as omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, and al mighti- 
ness ; he possesses all power in heaven and earth ; he is 
the source of light, unto every being that exists — from 
the tallest archangel to the humblest of God's creatures ; 
he is the fountain of life to the innumerable millions 
of God's elect, who have washed their robes and made 
them white in the blood of the Lamb — who are before 
his throne worshiping him day and night; he is the 
author of life to all creatures, that inhabit all worlds, 
whether great or small — from the mightiest creature that 
exists upon the face of the earth, to the feeblest animalcule 
that is indiscernible to the natural eye. My opponent 
is here to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity, as set 
forth in the Discipline, with regard to the equality of the 
Son with the Father, in power, glory, and eternity, is con- 
trary to the teaching of the Holy Spirit ; this is what he 
is here to prove, and not whether Clarke and Macknight 
agree, and Neander and Mosheim may be pleased to 
assert. I assume, that the sacrifice which Jesus Christ 
made, was a sacrifice of a perfect human nature. 

I offered, in my previous remarks, some explanation of 
the terms finite, and infinite, I will briefly repeat it. 
The word finite is, accordingly, applied to any thing 
which comes to an end — these are finite things ; all the 
materials connected with this world are finite, with every 
particle of matter that is destructible. As to future exist- 
ence, men and angels are not finite, they are all infinite. 
There was a time, when angels did not exist ; there was 
a time, when they began their existence ; but there will 
be no time, in the future, when angels will not exist, so 



248 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

there is no man that ever existed, that will cease to 
exist. Saul of Tarsus, Isaac Newton, and the humblest 
slave that crouches beneath the lash of his tyrant master, 
shall live, when the sun itself grows dim with age. There 
is no being, however exalted, or humble, that will not 
Kve to witness the destruction of time, when time itself 
shall be dissolved in the boundless ocean of eternity. 
Christ, in his human nature, was suited to be a com- 
panion of finite man. During his sojourn on earth, he 
"was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," that 
he might accomplish the work of man's redemption, 
" for without the shedding of blood, there is no redemp- 
tion." 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his divine nature, has Kved 
from all eternity, with the Father: "In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God." In his human nature, he lays hold 
upon the essential element of our nature, and is, there- 
fore, qualified to be our Eedeemer, and is able to raise to 
heaven our wretched, staggering, and ruined world, if 
they would accept the terms of salvation that he has 
provided. He shall give salvation to his people, and 
they shall sit down with him on his throne, as he has 
overcome and sat down with his Father. 

He wishes to know, with regard to our worship of 
Christ, whether we will worship the Christ that was 
upon the cross. We have but one Christ, one undivided 
Saviour. In Jesus Christ, the humanity was attached to 
the divinity ; it is the union of two natures in one per- 
son. We have one Christ, very God and very man ; 
this Christ we worship, as the proper object of our faith. 
Abram worshiped him ; he was the star of promise that 
lighted the way of the faithful ; it was upon him he re- 
lied, looking forward to his coming — we retrospectively 
to the past. This was the promise ; the Child born ; the 
Son given ; this is the mighty God ; the everlasting 
Father ; the Prince of Peace ; it is he upon whose shoul- 
ders the government of everlasting mercy shall rest — 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 249 

mightier than Gabriel himself, who flies with lightning 
speed to execute the designs of God. 

So Christ possesses infinite power, excellence, and 
glory in himself; he is declared to be the Child born, 
the Son of God ; but this is in relation to his human 
nature ; then he is declared to be the mighty God ; the 
universal Father ; the Prince of Peace, and this is in re- 
lation to his divine nature. We can not properly name 
God ; he is known in our language by different names ; 
but we have no right to name Jehovah — perhaps, there 
is no one name which can adequately express the per- 
fections of the author of universal existence ; but he has 
seen fit to make a revelation through his Son Jesus 
Christ ; but for this revelation, we must have been left in 
profound ignorance, as are many within the world at the 
present day. My brother said I had not the knowledge 
of God — he said this to my shame. I thank God I am 
in some measure in the light of his word. I recognize 
him in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, 
and I find the truths of his divine word corroborated, 
when compared with the objects of sense. I am im- 
pressed like the psalmist, "When I consider the heavens, 
the work of thy hands ; the moon, and the stars, which 
thou hast ordained, what is man, that thou art mindful of 
him, or the Son of man, that thou visitest him." I take 
pleasure in reflecting, that he who made these mighty 
objects, that are represented to our senses, has conde- 
scended to become our redeemer. Now the Creator is 
also the redeemer. I recognize and worship Jesus 
Christ, with God the Father as. one, filling the office of 
the second person in the Trinity, and I regard the Holy 
Ghost as the efficient agent in accomplishing the bene- 
volent designs of God, throughout the universe. I may, 
perhaps, be allowed to represent the idea of the Trinity, 
by the use of a figure from the world of nature. I use 
it, however, with some qualification, for it falls infinitely 
short of illustrating the great truth — for who can illustrate 
that which is infinite ? It must be so to all finite minds \ 



250 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

take, for example, water in its three conditions, as it ap- 
pears in its three forms of water, snow, and ice — under 
all the circumstances, their essential elements are un- 
changed ; it is now water, then snow, then it is ice, 
although known under the signification of water, snow, 
and ice, yet it is capable of being resolved into one and 
the same substance. Thus I hold that the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, are equal in every essential principle 
of their being ; that they possess all the divine attributes ; 
hence, they are one God — and this is the only God I 
know and worship ; the only God that I recognize, or 
that we are commanded to worship. 

The angel that came down to the Isle of Fatmos, and 
that appeared to John, refused worship. Angels came 
to Abraham, but worship was never allowed to be paid 
to them, or any inferior creature. God will not allow it. 
He is a jealous God. But I would earnestly desire your 
enlightenment, my brother, not that I wish to copy your 
manner. I would like to be able, in a forcible manner, 
to show you the obligations you are under to worship 
Christ. I do it because of the importance of admitting 
the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in one 
person — one undivided God. 

When the sick man came to Jesus, he said, " Take up 
thy bed and walk." Christ's name was sufficient hitherto; 
I therefore assume that Christ has infinite power. He 
further proclaimed, " Thy sins, which were many, are all 
forgiven thee." When the Jews questioned concerning 
him, he said, "The Son of man hath power on earth to 
forgive sins." I assume, therefore, that Christ is a 
proper object of worship. There can be no such thing 
as a conflict in the Divine mind. They are one in 
substance, and can not disagree ; one in power, and 
can not disagree ; one in glory, and can not disagree ; for 
we are commanded to honor the Son as we honor the 
Father. Hence, if I honor not the Son as the Father, I 
honor not God. Hence I enjoin you all to worship 
Christ, not as a mere man ; do not worship him as some 



t 



t 



♦ DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 251 

inferior being, for no such inferior Jesus is known in 
heaven. 

Mr Summerbell's Seventeenth address : 

Kind Friends — I desire to call especial attention to the 
style of my brother, in replying to texts, and his manner 
of disposing of them. Mark xiii, 32. Jesus says that 
he does not know the date of the end of the world. My 
brother replies, by endeavoring to prove that he does. 
John xi, 15. U I am glad that I was not there." He 
replies, by roundly asserting that he was there — that he 
was everywhere. 1 Cor. xv, 34. "All things are put 
under him," &c. My brother replies, wittily, that unless 
God was put under him all must mean pcwt, and disputes 
the fact. On John xvii, 3, where Jesus says that his 
Father is the only true God, brother Flood says, that the 
Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the 
Father. 1 Cor. viii, 6, "But to us there is but one 
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; 
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and 
we by him," This he can not be prevailed upon to 
touch. To Eph. iv, 4-8, where the Father is said to be 
over both Son and Holy Ghost, my brother makes no 
reply at all. Now these texts, with thousands of others, 
are capable of no explanation, in accordance with my 
brother's creed, or Constitution and Discipline, and he 
knows it. This is the reason, that instead of answering 
me, he barely objects that he does not believe that God is 
seated on a throne, (Rev. v,) or that the Lamb took the 
book out of his right hand. He objects to my quoting 
his own authorities ; evades over twenty-two cardinal 
difficulties in his theory, and after I have cited him to 
over thirteen thousand texts, reading, and giving him 
chapter and verse for over five hundred of them, he begs 
the question by saying that Tie believes in one God! 
And when I press him with his own authors, who aban- 
don nearly every position taken by him, as untenable, he 
declares that Tie cares not for the best of them. Very 



252 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

well ; I knew that he would come to that. Were they 
truly orthodox, they would agree better, but error and 
contradiction are inseparable. 

My brother in one breath confesses the Eternal Son, 
and in the next denies it. I want him, once for all, to 
tell us, if he believes the Bible, that God had a Son in 
eternity, by whom he made the worlds. Heb. i, 1. Now 
brother don't dodge the point, but explain yourself. My 
brother is like, they say, Arius was, professing to honor 
Christ by collecting a great many high-sounding titles, 
while he believed him to be a mere creature ; so my 
brother believes the Son only eighteen hundred years old, 
yet calls him Jehovah, &c. One mistake my brother 
makes is, that in speaking of the greatness of the Son of 
God, he tries to forget that we hold that he has received 
a name which is above every name, and is worthy of all 
those honors because he is God^s Son. Now he should 
show that if God had a Son in eternity ', (which he seems 
to deny,) that that Son of God could not be thus great 
by the union of God with him, as well as my brother's 
" very man" Attend to this point, brother. Trinitari- 
ans and Socinians alike, have but one God, as their 
creeds teach, and one man — while the Christians have 
God, and the Son of God for Mediator — and also what 
my opponent calls the human body. You see, to those 
for whom one God, the Father, is sufficient, my brother's 
work of creating another is superfluous, while by making 
the Supreme God of the Son, he destroys the Divine 
Mediator, while he adds nothing to God. 

My brother has several times intimated that I did not 
tell you what I believed about the Saviour. He does not 
seem to perceive any meaning in the words "Son of 
God." So many, he says, are called sons of God, both 
angels and men ; but my brother should remember that 
the same is true of God and other names. To please my 
brother, I will say again, that I believe that Jesus Christ 
is " the only begotten Son " of the living God, by whom 
God made the worlds, saves the world, and will judge 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 253 

the world. And since my brother calls this ambiguous, 
I here invite him to find one place in all the Bible where 
any other person is called the only begotten Son of God ! 
Will that do ? The truth is, my friends, my brother has 
rejected the doctrine that Christ is the Son of God, and 
he now makes this ado about my faith to divert your 
attention from his own Roman Catholic creed. The 
brother need not be alarmed about our faith ; it is the 
best in all the world. Tie says we have a great God and 
a little God, because Christ, a very few times, is colled 
God in the Bible, with many others. But being called 
God does not make either him or them God. Christ is 
called a Lion, a Lamb, a Door, a Vine, and the like ; 
vet we do not believe that he is literal lv either. We 
believe that he is the Son of God. We have no great 
God and little God. We did not receive our faith from 
Wesley, nor the Church of England, nor Germany, nor 
Rome ; flesh and blood revealed it not, but "oar Father 
which is in heaven." Mat. xvi, 17. Our faith has all 
the promises ; our creed is the Bible, and is from eighteen 
hundred to four thousand years old. Deny our doctrine, 
the Bible, and what is their creed worth ? Deny our 
God, and what is their Trinity worth ? Deny our Son of 
God, and what is their human sacrifice w r orth ? Deny 
our conversion, and what is their probation worth ? Deny 
the Christian, and what is Methodist Protestant worth ? 
Will that do, brother? If it won't, I will at any proper 
time meet you on that question, and affirm on my faith 
to your heart's content. Be it remembered, that my 
brother, though he will not confess that he worships a 
creature as God, yet if he worships ail of his God, 
human and divine ; all of his Christ, human and divine, 
and he intimates that he does, then he worships very 
man, a creature, as God — God Supreme, and proves 
himself guilty of the grossest idolatry, according to his 
own theory. 

Now, so far from holding the Son of God inferior to my 
brother's Saviour, we hold him higher than they hold their 



254 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

God. They think that if God gave Christ all power in 
heaven and in earth, that this would include all the power 
God possessed, and consequently, God would cease to 
exist. Now we believe that the Son of God received all 
this power in addition to power before possessed, and is, 
consequently, greater in power than they hold their God ; 
while we regard the Father as possessing unbounded 
power, unlimited by heaven, earth, or any other bounds. 
Thus much for Christ's power. As to his goodness, we 
regard his character so sacred, that when he says, "I 
came out from God," we believe him ; w T hen he says, 
"My Father is greater than I," w r e believe him ; when 
he says, " Ye shall see the Son of man standing on the 
right hand of God," we believe him ; when he says, "I 
can of mine own self do nothing," we believe him. We 
do not think it idolatry to worship him ; we do not doubt 
his power to save us ; we do not doubt his faithfulness ; 
we do not call him, "very man — -perfect humanity" 
good as Adam ; but THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON 
OF THE LIVING GOD. But when Jesus says, "I 
came out from God," my brother don't believe it. When 
he says, "All power in heaven and in earth is given unto 
him," my brother does not believe it. When he says, 
" My Father is greater than I," my brother does not be- 
lieve it. He says, if Christ received all power, he can 
not trust him. I warn you not to trust him, if he can 
not trust his Saviour. His reverend brethren say, if he 
was not the eternal God, the Jews did well to crucify 
him, as a noted impostor, not worthy a name in history. 

My brother says, that Jesus was very God and very 
man, and yet only one person. I will now present an ar- 
gument on the two natures on the cross, and see whether 
he will abandon his Christ or his creed. 

If, as my brother says, Jesus and God were both in one 
Christ, and only constituted one person ; then, if God is 
a person, (and if not, my brother falls into Atheism) 
when God left Jesus to die on the cross, then one person 
left, (but as only one person was there,) and all the per- 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 255 

son left the cross, so that there was no person remaining 
on the cross — no person died ; no person was buried ; no 
person rose ; " our faith is vain — we are yet in our sins ;" 
and those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished ; 
and my brother thus destroys the whole plan of our sal- 
vation. 

My brother objects to my calling his three persons, 
three Gods ; but if they have all the infinite attributes, 
why are they not three Gods ? what do they lack to con- 
stitute them Gods ? "Wherein do they differ from three 
Gods ? If not three Gods, what are they ? Persons % 
So are men, persons ; and three men would not make one 
God. What are they? Spirits! But so are angels; 
yet three angels would not make one God. What are 
they ? If not three men, nor three angels, to what class 
of intelligences do they belong ? They are not three sons 
of God ; where will my brother class them ? If I were 
to speak of three persons, and say that they are neither 
three sons of God, three angels, nor three men, and re- 
fused to tell what. three they were, would you not say 
that I was avoiding the issue ? Gen. i, 1, " the Gods ;" 
my brother says, and gives Watson for his authority, 
"JEloMm, the Gods;" let my brother then, no more 
deny that he has Gods, and has given up the first article 
of his Constitution and Discipline entirely, which says, 
that there is but one God. 

My brother said, that the council of Constantinople, 
(which Gregory Nazianzen compares, Gib. iii, 79, to 
wasps, magpies, cranes, and geese,) only settled the doc- 
trine of the essential Trinity, instead of giving it the finish- 
ing touch ; but I proved to him that the Trinity was not 
perfected as to the procession (?) of the Holy Ghost, until 
A. D., 638. Mosheim i, 224. I want my brother to 
answer this. He introduced John Brown, ex parte evi- 
dence, of no authority on the question. 

My friend objected to my saying, that he has Gods, or 
three Gods ; and yet, again insists on translating Elohim 
the "Gods." I ask my brother to tell us how many it 



256 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

takes to make it proper to call them Gods ? I hope my 
brother will explain again, the explanation that the word 
means Gods, and he will call it Gods ; but that he does 
not mean Gods, will not do. 

My friend, after denying that Christ could be eternal 
as the Son of God, now says, that as man will not be 
annihilated, he is, in some sense, eternal ; so that he has 
untold (?) millions of eternals. Yet he has nothing to 
atone God, and pay an infinite demand, but \ a perfect 
human sacrifice, gbod as Adam. But my brother has 
never yet explained this in connection with Clarke, with 
whom he agrees, who says that God will no more accept 
of man's blood in sacrifice, than swine's blood. I urge 
my brother's attention to this. 2 Sam. xxi, 10. 

He still urged, that Is. ix, 6, in opposition to all the 
Trinitarian authorities I produced, should be understood 
as making the child born, the human nature ; and that 
the Mighty God, (al gibbor) the same as Gabriel, the 
name of the angel, meant the divine nature — thus teach- 
ing Socinianism. 

His quotation from Clarke, on Genesis i, is an effort 
of the author to sustain his creed. Clarke traces Elohim 
back to the Arabic, where he thinks the root is nVtf (alali) 
in Arabic, with the ■■ (yod) dropped, and the b (lamed) 
doubled. He then goes to alaha, but nowhere in all 
this, does he find proof, that any considered El, Elohim, 
Alohim, Al, Alah, or Allah as meaning more than one ; 
but rather, all idea of plurality runs out. 

Trinitarians have long taught and preached against 
humanity being a sufficient sacrifice to atone divinity, 
and denounced us as Socinians ; and asserted that a human 
Saviour, or any less than God, was unworthy of trust. 
Yet it is now clear to all, that we have a divine Saviour; 
while they have no more than the Socinian. Now is the 
time to demonstrate it if they have. Both Socinians and 
Trinitarians admit one God, and but one ; and one man 
beside for a sacrifice and mediator, and but one. Both ad- 
mit that the Mighty God dwelt in the man Jesus. Both 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 257 

admit that the man was in close union with, and sancti- 
fied by, the divine nature. But the Trinitarian starts off 
from the Socinian, with the withering exclamation, that 
a human sacrifice is not sufficient. He then attempts to 
prove the Deity of Christ ; but not the Christ which was 
seen, and suffered ; not the Christ who bled and died ; 
but some imaginary, invisible Christ or nature which was 
in that Christ. And after traveling all around the theo- 
logical circle, multiplying the divine nature without 
either increasing the deity or changing the sacrifice, he 
meets the Socinian just where he left him, with but one 
God, and one human sacrifice. The Christians alone, 
hold to a divine sacrifice. My brother compares God to 
water, ice, and snow, three conditions of water — a cold, 
watery argument — but not applicable. The Trinity is not 
three conditions of God, nor is Jesus a condition of God. 
John the Baptist (John i, 34.) said, "I saw and bare 
record, that this is the Son of God." The evil spirits 
said, Matt, viii, 29, " We know thee, who thou art, the 
Christ the Son of God." The centurion exclaimed, Mark 
xv, 39, "Of a truth this is the Son of God." Nathaniel 
said, John i, 49, " Thou art the Son of God." Jesus 
said, John x, 34, " I said I am the Son of God." God 
himself said, Matt, iii, IT, "This is my beloved Son." 
He is called, GocPs own Son — GocCs only begotten Son 
— GocPs well-beloved Son — the Son of the living God / 
language never used of any other being in the universe. 
It would not do to call God the beloved Son of God. 
"And to which of the angels said he at any time, thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? " Heb. i, 5. 
No man is Christ the Lord. Only the Son of God is 
of God. Not the supreme God, but the Son of God, Matt, 
xvi, 16 ; the form of God, Philip, ii, 6 ; the image of 
God, Heb. i, 3; the power of God, 1 Cor. i, 24; the 
wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i, 24 ; the word o^ God, Bev. xix, 
13 ; the servant of God, Matt, xii, 18 ; elect of God, Is. 
xlii, 1 ; at the right hand of God, Acts vii, 55 ; anointed 
of God, Acts ii, 36 ; ordained of God, Acts xvii, 31 ; 
22 



258 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

appointed of God, Heb. iii, 1 ; High-priest of God, Heb.. 
v, 10. So also, how could he come out from God ? — go 
back to God ? How can Jesus be at God's right hand, 
and yet be that God at whose right hand he is ? I want 
my brother to explain this. I want him also to demon- 
strate to us, how it was such a great manifestation of 
God's love to us, to give perfect humanity to die for us ? 
God professes to manifest his love by the gift of his Son ; 
but how does this prove God's love, if that Son is nothing 
but a " very man," even though that human being be 
"as perfect as Adam ? " It is still a man. I have men- 
tioned that Dr. Watts, the Christian poet, abandond the 
Trinity in his maturer years, and would have destroyed 
those Trinitarian doxologies they love to sing, but that he 
had sold the copyright of his book. Let me read you a 
prayer of his about the Trinity. It is one of the best 
prayers ever written. 

Dr. Watts* Prayer. — u Dear and blessed God, hadst 
thou been pleased in any one plain Scripture to have in- 
formed me, which of the different opinions about the 
holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, 
had been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satis- 
faction, and joy, my unbiased heart would have opened 
itself to receive and embrace the divine discovery. 
Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single text, that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three real, distinct per- 
sons, in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself 
to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed 
with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere in- 
ventions of men, instead of divine doctrine ; but I should 
have humbly, and immediately accepted thy words, so 
far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the 
only rule of my faith ; for hadst thou been pleased so to 
express and include this proposition in the several scat- 
tered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and con- 
science might, with ease, find out, and with certainty 
infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all 
my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 259 

to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into 
my soul. Thou has taught rne, holy Father, by thy pro- 
phets, that the way of holiness in the times of the Gospel, 
or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a high- 
way, a plain and easy path, so that the wayfaring man, 
or the stranger, though a fool, shall not err therein ; and 
thou hast called the poor and the ignorant, the mean and 
foolish things of this world, to the knowledge of thyself 
and thy Son, and taught them to receive and partake of 
the salvation thou hast provided. But how can such 
weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and 
so abstruse a doctrine as this, in the explication and de- 
fense whereof, multitudes of men, even men of learning 
and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of 
dispute and endless mazes of darkness ? And can this 
strange and perplexing notion of three real persons, 
going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so 
important a part of that Christian doctrine, which in the 
Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain 
and so easy, even to the meanest understanding !" 

Here you see that this great poet, in his latter years, 
discarded the doctrine of the Trinity. I will now present 
some more texts, to prove that Jesus is not the supreme 
God, which I want my brother to answer. 

1 Cor. viii, 6, " To us there is but one God the Father ;" 
hence there is no other God. 

Acts ii, 22, Jesus was " approved of God, by signs 
and wonders, which God did by him ;" hence he was not 
the God who approved him. 

John xiv, 28, Jesus positively declares, " My father is 
greater than I ;" hence, he is not the supreme God. 

John xiv, 10, " The Father that dwelleth in me, he 
doeth the works ;" but the supreme God could not say this. 

John vii, 16, " My doctrine is not mine, but his that 
sent me ;" but of the supreme God, this is not true. 

John v, 26, "The Father hath given the Son author- 
ity;" but no Father could give the supreme God au- 
thority. 



260 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Matt, xx, 23, " To sit at my right hand, &c, is not 
mine to give, but for whom it is prepared of my Father." 

1 Cor. viii, 6, Christ is distinguished from God, as the 
one " by whom are all things," in contradistinction from 
God, " of whom are all things." 

John v, 57, Jesus says : u I live by the Father ;" but 
God is self-existent, and lives by no one. 

John viii, 17, "I am one who beareth witness of my- 
self, and the Father that sent me, beareth witness of me ;" 
but God has no Father to bear witness of him. 

Matt, iii, 17, God says : " This is my beloved Son ;" 
but the supreme God is no one's Son. 

1 John iv, 14, " We have seen, and do testify that the 
Father sent the Son ;" but no one ever sent God. 

Heb. iii, 1, 2, " Jesus who is faithful to him who ap- 
pointed him ;" but no one ever appointed God. 

Eom. viii, 34, "Who is ever at the right hand of God, 
who also maketh intercession for us ;" but God is not at 
God's right hand interceding for us. 

Jesus Christ positively disclaims the divine attribute 
of omniscience. " But of that day and hour knoweth no 
man, no, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son" " but 
the Father only" Mark xiii, 32 ; Matt, xxiv, 36. 

Jesus Christ prayed to God. Luke xvi, 12. We have 
a specimen of his prayers : John xvii, 5. "O Father, 
glorify thou me, with thy own self, with the glory I had 
with thee before the world was." And on the cross, he 
cried, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." 
Matt, xxviii, 46. Could these prayers and exclamations 
be uttered by the supreme God 2 

Supreme w T orship, according to the Scriptures, is 
uniformly paid, not to Christ, out to God. the Father, 
through Christ. " I thank God through Jesus Christ" 
Rom. vii, 25. "To God only wise, be glory through 
Christ." Eom. xvi, 27. 

Christ is worshiped as the Son, and " Lamb of God." 
Heb. i, 8, and Rev. v, 13. 

Jesus Christ is represented by the New Testament 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 261 

writers, as the "Image of God." Col. i, 15 ; 2 Cor. 
iv, 4. Would it not be absurd to call any one his own 
image ? 

Jesus Christ is called, in Scripture, " the first lorn 
among many brethren." Kom. viii, 27. But the su- 
preme God has no brethren. 

Jesus Christ is represented as receiving commands 
from the Father. " The Father who sent me, gave me a 
commandment ;" John xii, 49 ; but no one can com- 
mand God. 

The Scriptures teach us, that God the Father hath 
highly exalted the Lord Jesus Christ, and given him a 
name which " is above every name ;" Phil, ii, 9 ; but 
no one has ever highly exalted God. 

Mr. Flood's Seventeenth reply : 

The manner in which my brother indulged in appeals, 
when he got fairly under-way, is rather interesting. 
Several times during the discussion, my brother seemed 
anxious to know whether we believed the divinity of 
Jesus Christ received any part of the atonement. Such 
phraseology we have never employed. And he inquired 
whether we believed that satisfaction was rendered to the 
divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as to the Father 
and to the Holy Spirit ? This language, perhaps, is not 
acceptable. " How much more," says the apostle, " shall 
the blood of Jesus Christ, who, through the eternal 
Spirit, 55 &c," purge your conscience.' 5 Here the apostle 
declares that Christ offered himself, through the eternal 
Spirit, without spot, to God. I refer him to Isaiah liii, 
and to Gal. iii, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
of the law. 55 Now, w T e inquire, what law, the law that 
was violated ? the law of God ? How did he redeem us ? 
By rendering satisfaction to the demands of that law, 
fulfilling that law in our room and stead. " I came to 
fulfill, 55 &c. Also, Christ as God received satisfaction, as 
stated by Dr. Brown, the terms used are applicable to the 
supreme God, and equally so to Jesus Christ. We 



262 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

invite attention to Exodus iii, 14, " And God said unto 
Moses, I am that I am ; and he said, Thus shalt thou say 
unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. 
God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say 
unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your Fathers, 
the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath 
sent me unto you ; this is my name for ever, and this is 
my memorial unto all generations." Exodus vi, 3. 
" And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and Jacob, 
by the name of God Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah 
was I not known to them." We invite attention to Dr. 
Clarke on this passage, proving Christ is this "I Am." 

Clarke, Yol. i. Exodus iii, 14, 15. "'And God said 
unto Moses, I am that I am ; and he said, Thus shalt 
thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me 
unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus 
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God 
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you ; this is 
my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all gen- 
erations.' Chap, vi, 3, ' And I appeared unto Abra- 
ham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God 
Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to 
them.' fc By the name of God Almighty, El Shaday, God 
All-sufficient, God the dispenser or pourer out of gifts.' 
4 But by my name Jehovah was I not known to them ;' 
this passage has been a sort of crux criticorum, and has 
been variously explained. It is certain that the name Je- 
hovah was in use long before the days of Abraham. See 
Gen. ii, 4, where the words, Jehovah, Elohim, occur as 
they do frequently afterward ; and see Gen. xv, 2, where 
Abraham expressly addresses him by the name Adonai, 
Jehovah; and see the seventh verse, where God reveals 
himself to Abraham by this very name : and he said, I 
am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees. 
How, then, can it be said that by his name Jehovah he 
was not known unto them ? Several answers have been 
given to this question ; the following are the chief: First, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 263 

The word should be read interrogatively, for the negative 
particle lo, not, has this power often in Hebrew. I ap- 
peared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of 
God Almighty ; and by my name Jehovah was I not also 
made known unto them ? The name Jehovah, was not 
revealed before the time mentioned here ; for, though it 
occurs so frequently in the book of Genesis, that book was 
written long after the name had come into common use. 
As a principal characteristic of God, Moses employs it in 
his history, because of this circumstance ; so that when- 
ever it appears previously to this, it is by the figure 
called prolepsis or anticipative. As the name Jehovah 
signifies existence, it may be understood in the text in 
question, thus: I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, by my name God Almighty, or God All-sufficient, 
having all power to do all good. In this character I 
made a covenant with them, supported by great and glo- 
rious promises, but as those promises had respect to their 
posterity, they could not be fulfilled to those lathers ; but 
now, as Jehovah, I am about to give existence to all 
those promises relative to your support, deliverance from 
bondage, and your consequent settlement in the promised 
land. The words may be considered as used compara- 
tively, though God did appear to those patriarchs as 
Jehovah, and they acknowledged him by this name ; yet it 
was but comparatively known unto them. They knew no- 
thing of the power and goodness of God, in comparison 
with what the Israelites were now about to experience. 
I believe the simple meaning is this : that though from 
the beginning the name Jehovah was known as one of 
the names of the supreme Being, yet what it really im- 
plied they did not know. M Shaday, God All-sufficient, 
they knew well by the continual provision he made for 
them, and the constant protection he afforded them ; but 
the name Jehovah is particularly to be referred to the 
accomplishment of promises already made; to the giving 
them a being, and thus bringing them into existence, 
which could not have been done in the order of his 



264 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

providence sooner than here specified. This name, there- 
fore, in its power and supremacy, was not known unto 
them, nor fully known unto their descendants, until the 
deliverance from Egypt, and the settlement in the pro- 
mised land. It is surely possible for a man to bear the 
name of a certain office or dignity before he fulfills any 
of its functions. King, mayor, alderman, magistrate, 
constable, may be borne by the several persons to whom 
they legally belong, before any of the acts peculiar to 
those offices are performed. The king, acknowledged as 
such on his coronation, is known to be such by his legis- 
lative acts ; the civil magistrate, by his distribution of 
justice, and issuing warrants for the apprehending of cul- 
prits; and the constable, by executing those warrants. 
All these were known to have their respective names ; 
but the exercise of their powers alone shows what is im- 
plied in being king, magistrate, or constable. Ex. vi, 7, 
4 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be 
to you a God : and ye shall know that I am the Lord 
your God, which bringeth you out from under the bur- 
dens of the Egyptians.' (Note.) 'And ye shall know 
that I am the Lord (Jehovah) your God ; by thus fulfill- 
ing my promises, ye shall know what is implied in my 
name. 5 " 

Here the Word, according to this learned author, re- 
lates to him who is possessed of self-existence, and is all- 
sufficient ; and who is to fulfill all the promises that are 
made, respecting the redemption of the human race. 
" Of that hour knoweth no man but the Father only." 

Clark says, " Where this language is applied to the 
Son it is wanting in all the rest of the evangelists, and he 
regards it as spurious." This Arian text I will offset with 
1 John v, 7, which my brotter modestly said was a Trinita- 
rian forgery. He says, we avoid reference to Christ 
sitting at the right hand of God. How often will my 
brother require me to return to this sitting at the right 
hand % It was the^custom of Orientals, that he who sat 
at the right hand at meat was first in honor and rank, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 265 

and the one on the left was second ; and it was in view 
of this custom, that the mother of the two disciples asked 
this favor for her children. I press my brother, to know 
whether this is a literal fact : that God is literally seated 
somewhere high up in the heaven. Christ being at the 
right hand of God — is in the immediate favor of God — 
highest in the favor of God as the Eedeemer of our race, 
and intercessor between God and man — occupying the 
highest place in this interesting character. If in Jesus 
resides all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, I would 
ask how it is, that Jesus, in whom dwells all the fullness 
of the Godhead bodily, is upon the right hand of this 
God ? If my brother will explain this difficulty, I will 
unravel his. I should like to know if God has a right 
hand, literally, and Christ occupies the literal right hand 
of God ? He refers to Hebrews — " about God creating 
the world by Christ " — and wishes to know whether by 
his Son he created the world ? I have stated that in his 
Divine nature he was eternal. The apostle, speaking of 
him as the begotten of the Father, speaks of him, prop- 
erly, as the Son of God, and I believe in him as the Son 
of God. It is a mere quibble with regard to God having 
a Son. He is one person in the blessed Trinity — the 
Logos, that was in the beginning — this became flesh and 
dwelt among us ; he is entitled to the title of the Son of 
God, and his humanity, united with the Divinity, consti- 
tutes one person. My brother now complains of my 
stamping in the pulpit. I was amused at my brother 
clapping his hands, and thumping the pulpit. I have a 
request to make, brother. I hope you will not knock this 
pulpit down ; for I want a place to stand when your sys- 
tem falls. He tells us Jesus Christ is the only begotten 
Son of God. Who disputed this ? He is now just as 
much inclined to avoid the true issue, as he was the 
first clay. He has not given us the true character of God, 
or Christ, from the commencement of the debate to the 
end. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is entertained 
by all Trinitarians. He goes on to say, that our creed is 
23 



,266 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY, 

a Roman Catholic creed. Yery courteous in my brother, 
thus to come forward and charge us with having a Roman 
Catholic creed. Hear that remark, my auditors, and say 
what it is worth. What could he have in view but draw- 
ing, when further argument failed, the Trinity into disre- 
pute ? He ought to know that true, respectable Protest- 
ant divines, in all ages, have maintained the position I 
contend for; he so admitted, that they were in the 
majority — but I would not persecute him because he is 
in the minority ; whereas the majority, the learned, and 
God-fearing of all generations, stand upon this great 
doctrine. Are they found occupying the views of my 
brother, that Christ is an angel or man ? If I worship 
Christ in this light, as a creature, then I am an idolater. 
I have no right to worship Jesus Christ, if he be in any 
sense whatever, in the Divine nature, inferior to God ; 
for God has prohibited all such worship, pronouncing it 
idolatry. And if we may worship one creature, we may 
worship any creature that our imagination might be 
directed to. My brother has often pressed the proposi- 
tion, that in having a human nature associated with the 
Divine, I am an idolater. The human nature, I have 
informed him, is the medium through which the blessings 
of Christ should flow to our race ; his blood redeemed 
us^ and yet he does not apply that language in its 
full literal signification. But it was this blood of the 
cross which was identified with the Divine nature, so 
that God might be just and the justifier of all those that 
believe in him. Now, he goes on to speak in a different 
manner, to what he has done for a day or two. Again, 
my brother says, " You take our doctrine out of his, and 
what will be left ? Nothing but shell and chaff." Now 
I have not said of my brother's doctrine, that it was shell 
and chaff; but it seems to me his doctrine must possess 
somewhat of the nature of the latter, for there is not 
sufficient weight in it to be brought into view. He has 
been trying for a number of days, to tell us that he is the 
only begotten Son of God, and he is willing to defend 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 267 

this doctrine — Ms doctrine. This you will not call 
begging the question, will you ? So learned a man as 
my brother, would never think of committing a logical 
blunder of this kind. He says, that Christ did have 
all power — all power in heaven and all power on earth, 
and yet that more power than all that was given him. I 
would like to know where that power existed, if he had 
all power in heaven to sustain the life and bless infinitely 
the world, and on earth to sustain the laws of nature, 
and all power necessary to preserve everlasting exist- 
ence ? And yet, he says, there was other power, that 
Christ, a creature inferior to the Father, possessed. 

Here is the absurdity that he created himself: for all 
things were made by him, and for him, and without him 
was not anything made, that w r as made ; he possessed all 
power. Then he charges me with dodging the question. 
These are among the criticisms I have received from 
my brother, after a hard day's discussion. Now, if this 
should appear in a book, I should appear to be tracing my 
brother for ever round and round, over the same ground ; 
this is the only reason why I desire that it should not 
appear in print. Any one may judge, what may be ex- 
pected during the day ; if you wish for a jolly rout of it, 
I will try to be in your neighborhood : do the work you 
have undertaken, and there will not be a hair between 
you and heaven. He stuck up a book, to illustrate the 
Trinity ; and wanted to know when Christ died, and God 
was withdrawn, whether there was any other person left 
on the cross ? As the divinity withdrew, the unsupported 
humanity sank down under the weight, and had not the 
divinity withdrawn, all the power in earth, and hell, could 
not have taken that life. See Articles of Religion : First, 
" There is but one living, and true God everlasting ; with- 
out body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and good- 
ness ; the maker and preserver of all things, visible, and 
invisible, and in unity of this Godhead, there are three 
persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 



268 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Second, "The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the 
very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, 
took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Yirgin, so 
that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the 
Godhead, and manhood, were joined together in one 
person, never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ — very 
God, and very man — who truly suffered ; was crucified, 
dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be 
a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual 
sins of men." 

He cried, it is finished ; all the types and shadows 
that had pointed to him, met at the cross, and received 
their final consummation ; he became a sacrifice under 
the law for righteousness. As the divine nature with- 
drew, the hunjan nature was sanctified, by enduring the 
agonies of the cross. I assert that Christ possessed but 
one person in his divine and human nature ; he is one 
in substance, power, and eternity. My brother is not for- 
tunate enough to see the proposition ; indeed, he has 
never made the discovery of his own proposition. 

Mk. Summerbell's Eighteenth address: 

Will the Moderators please to read the proposition 
again : 

1 'Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of 
the Methodist Protestant Church, especially with regard to the 
equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, 
glory and eternity, contrary to the teaching of the Word of God ?" 

My brother does not seem to like my close argument 
this morning, and I was afraid that he would not. He 
quotes something about satisfaction being rendered by 
Jesus to the divine nature of Christ ; let him find this 
doctrine in the Bible, if he can. If he will refer to Is. 
liii, 4-6, he will see that " by his stripes we are healed," 
not God. His blood purges our conscience from dead 
works, to serve the living God. What satisfaction is 
there in that ? That is the Christian doctrine } there 
is nothing said about satisfaction, but salvation. What 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 269 

an idea, that the Son of God should die to render him- 
self satisfaction ! to pay himself! for my brother makes 
out that the person on the cross died to pay, and to satisfy 
himself. Gal. iii, 13, reads: "He has redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." 
That is all very good doctrine ; but it says nothing about 
satisfaction to God. For what reason does he wish to 
go off on the doctrine of the atonement ? I suppose he 
has preached a good sermon on that subject, and now he 
wishes to turn off your attention, by rehearsing it, and 
so divert your minds from the main argument. He 
quotes Dr. Brown on his side, but what authority is that 
to me ? He quotes, " I Am that I Am ;■" but he does not 
believe that the Jesus on the cross was the " I Am " al- 
luded to. Let me now direct your attention to an argu- 
ment, showing from the Word of God, that you can not 
depend upon the assumption, that wherever the word 
Lord, in small capitals, occurs in our translation of the 
Old Testament, it is Jehovah in the original. 

Gen. xv, 7, God said to Abraham : " I am the Lord," 
i. e., Jehovah^ if that assumption be correct ; but four 
hundred years after, he said to Moses, Ex. vi, 2, 3, " By my 
name Jehovah I was not known to Abraham." So that 
nothing is more certain, than that no dependence is to 
be placed upon the translation, or even the occurrence, in 
the original, of a single word. My brother fails in this, 
as in every thing else. He cannot succeed, simply, 
because the creed is contrary to the Bible. Its doctrine, 
its discipline, its precepts and principles, belong to a 
later age. How wrong then, it is, to call them orthodox. 
My brother says that there is not a hair between me and 
heaven. There is not a hair between him and a worse 
place than heaven ! Perhaps my brother would prefer 
that I should reply to his wit ; but that does not prove 
the Trinity ! He says that I would baptize in the name 
of an Influence. Oh no ! I believe in the Holy Ghost. 
I only proposed that he had better call it God's Spirit- 
ual Influence, than to call it the third person in the 



270 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Trinity, and then swing it beneath the throne, as a 
pendulum. 

You see what my brother attempts to prove, amounts 
to nothing. The longer he disputes, the worse he is off. 
His doctrine would stand more fair if he would not reply 
to me at all; for if he attempts to reply he gets into 
trouble, from which he finds it impossible to extricate 
himself. He feels this himself. A man that boasts he 
has all the literature of the world on his side, as to doc- 
trines, beliefs, &c, must feel himself in a sad dilemma 
to get along as poorly as my opponent does. He first 
admits that this is not in the Bible, and then that that is 
not in the Bible. First he says, that God has no body ; 
and then that God has a body. That God and the very 
man are one, and that they can not be divided ; and then 
that they were divided three days and three nights. His 
own authors admit that his chief text is forged ; but he 
sets off an admitted Trinitarian forgery against another 
Trinitarian forgery, by charging it upon the Arians. 
What does Macknight say about the Arian forging ? 
Let me read: " Mill saith, 6$ and 6 were substituted in 
place of the true reading, not, however, by the Arians," 
&c. Macknight, on 1 Tim. iii, 16, Though orthodox, 
does not accuse the Arians of the forgery of this text. 
My brother is a ready man to speak, but he finds the 
doctrine of the Trinity has passed away like the early 
cloud and the morning dew, and he knows not where to 
find it. 

Heb, i, 3, " God created the world by his Son," yet 
stands. It can not be explained away by my brother. 
It is like the branch of a tree — if you force it from its 
place, the moment that it is released it flies back again. 
So the truth remains in defiance of all explanations. He 
says that he wants a place on which to stand when my 
system is gone down. He will have a long time to wait. 
My brother should know that the most eminent men in 
the world are embracing, as the only true Bible doctrine, 
this system at the present time. The Eoman Catholics 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 271 

made the first Trinitarian creed, and the Protestants ob- 
tained theirs from the Soman Catholics. But they must 
go down. My brother says that the most noted names 
are on his side. What are the names that are quoted 
against the Christian doctrine ? If we wish to quote the 
eminent men in favor of it, to what abler names could 
we refer than to Milton, Newton, Locke ? and these men 
held the same views which I hold. In our own country 
I should refer to such men as J. Q. Adams, Fillmore, and 
Worcester. Are such men to be put down and called no- 
body ? They are claimed by those called orthodox ; and 
yet they held our views. My brother says of the title "Son 
of God" that it is an indefinite term. I ask him to find 
one text in all God's book, where an angel or man is 
called " the only begotten Son of God. 5 ' If he can not 
find any one person in all heaven and earth, but Jesus 
Christ, so named, let him not call it ambiguous. But 
the name God is an indefinite term ; it is given to Moses, 
to magistrates, to angels, and to men. Jesus so recog- 
nises it in John x, 34, "Is it not written in your law, I 
said ye are Gods ?" " He called them Gods to whom the 
Word of God came," &c. 

My brother does not know what to make of the appel- 
lation " the Son of God." It seems a very obscure term 
to him. It means nothing in his view ! nothing at all ! 
Why, he says, Son of God! The angels are the sons of 
God. But I ask, " To which of the angels said God at 
any time, Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten 
thee ; (or) I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me 
a Son?" Heb. i, 5. Do you not see, my brother, that 
you contradict the plainest teachings of the Bible ? 
Though he can not understand the meaning of the term 
Son of God, because he thinks it sometimes applied to 
angels, and thinks that it can not possibly prove that 
Jesus is the Son of God ; yet he sees no ambiguity in 
the term God, though it is constantly applied both to 
angels and men in the Bible, and but a very few times 
to Christ. But if it is such an ambiguous text, why did 



272 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

not Jesus tell Peter so, instead of blessing him, when he 
said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ?" 
All the promises and blessings attached to the Gospel 
faith, are predicated upon the admission of this fact ; and 
yet my brother calls it ambiguous. The truth is, he does 
not believe it. Nothing is more clearly stated in the 
Word of God, than that Jesus is the Son of God ; and 
my brother must know that his reasoning against it is 
fallacious. My brother is in trouble to-day ; he has been 
putting off answering the arguments from day to day till 
the present time, and now they press down upon him, 
and he knows not what to do. He is very much afraid 
that the Debate will be published, because it makes him 
go round and round. I thought, that he was getting 
giddy. He is opposed to its being published ; and I knew 
that he would be before we were half through. He will 
still feel worse and worse ; but I do not know what he 
will do about it. Do try to be reconciled, my brother. 
If you did not want it published, you should not have 
been here at all. He quotes the passage (mistranslated) 
which speaks of the Hood of God ; but he is very care- 
ful to tell us that he does not believe it. But why, then, 
does he quote it ? Thus he assumes his positions ; but 
anticipating an attack, he abandons them — knowing them 
to be untenable. First he flies this way, then that, cry- 
ing, I don't mean it ; and then he turns another way, 
and declares that he don't mean that. He calls me an 
idolater; because, he says, that I worship Christ as a 
creature ; and then admits that he worships all of his 
Christ (very God and very man) as God; thus admitting 
that he worships a creature, and is an idolater — falling 
under the condemnation he pronounced upon me, though 
I have never assumed such a position. Are the saints 
in heaven idolaters, who worship the Lamb that was 
slain ? Are the angels idolaters, who worship the first- 
begotten ? Were the Christian fathers idolaters ? Were 
the eminent men I named, such as Eusebius, Dr. S. 
Clarke, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Milton, J. Q. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 273 

Adams, &c, idolaters ? He talks of my making a logi- 
cal blunder. And now I challenge him to show where, 
through the whole of this discussion, I have made one 
logical blunder. 

He admitted that I had given up but one position ; 
and you all know that that was one which I had never 
taken. He thought that if Christ received all power, 
that then there was no power that he did not receive at 
that time. But if there was no power but that conveyed 
then, it follows that Christ had none before, and that none, 
angels or men, had any after ; and that even Christ could 
not have had any when he raised the dead. Such is the 
effect of my brother's logic, and he can not dodge it. 
The true meaning of the text, " all power is given," &c, 
is, that God has given to Christ all authority and power 
to carry on the work of redemption. But my brother's 
theory annihilates his God, in spite of his artifice ; the 
cap belongs to him, and he must wear it — the shoe may 
pinch, but he must put it on. If he dislikes it, let him 
abandon his theory. 

He says, that sitting at the right hand of God, is sim- 
ply an oriental figure of speech. So that, when John 
saw the heavens opened, and Jesus standing at the right 
hand of God, he simply saw a figure of speech — an ori- 
ental figure of speech ! He thinks, that as God fills all 
space, the Son could not literally come out from God, nor 
sit at the right hand of God. I believe in the Omni- 
presence of God, but not in a physical, bodily presence ; 
that would preclude the possibility of any thing existing 
outside of his person. God is Omnipresent to under- 
stand all things by the perfection of his infinite intelli- 
gence. He is present to see every thing ; because nothing 
is hid from his all-piercing eye. His ear is open to all 
places, not because of a local presence, but because of 
the perfection of an intellectual presence. Our powers 
are all bounded by a narrow circumference, and our pre- 
sence extends but a short distance around us ; yet our 
presence extends beyond the space filled by our person ; 



274 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

but if their philosophy be correct, God's does not. The 
wicked cannot be banished from, but must for ever dwell 
in, God. My brother makes out, that God literally fills 
every thing, even the lower regions of the lost are literal- 
ly in God. That is a harsh idea, my brother ! Abandon 
it, I pray you. Again, Jesus positively denies being the 
author of his own miracles. He declares that he was 
not the author of the system he preached. My brother 
contends that he was, and that God and Christ were 
one being. I want him to explain this. Come up to 
the work, my brother, and explain how it is Jesus said, 
" The Son can do nothing of himself,' 3 and yet that he is 
the eternal God ? I want my brother to explain, how 
the first person in the Trinity begat Christ, and the last 
person in the Trinity begat him ? and how thus he was 
begotten by two persons, and had two Fathers ? This is 
no isolated objection to the theory, nor peculiar blunder 
of my brother. The system which he attempts to uphold, 
involves five hundred as great absurdities as this ; and 
were we to continue this debate ever so long, we should 
still bring up as great absurdities as this for him to ex- 
plain away. 

Jesus Christ invariably refers to the Father as his 
authority ; he says, the Father has given the Son author- 
ity. Why can we not believe him ? Yet whether we 
will or no, the truth remains, that God has a Son between 
him and all creatures — a divine medium between the 
Creator and the creature. This has ever been the doctrine 
held by the most eminently enlightened men of all the 
world. It has been the comfort and stay of thousands, 
that we had a divine Mediator. But my brother, by de- 
nying this divine medium, and assuming that the media- 
tor is a mere man, has denied the existence of the true 
Mediator. And I challenge him to show, that he has 
any medium between God and man. Paul says, " a me- 
diator is not a mediator of one, but God is one" — that is, 
a mediator is not one of the parties. My brother says, 
Christ is two — God and man ; but the God cannot be a 



DISCUSSION OK THE TRINITY. 275 

mediator between God and man, for God is God himself, 
and not between. Nor can the man be a mediator be- 
tween man and God, for the man is man himself, and not 
between. Is it not proper to say that Christ is the only 
begotten Son of God ? Then why not believe it ? Is it 
right to call GocPs Son — only begotten Son, a creature ? 
Then why do it ? So long as there is none other called 
the only begotten and well beloved Son of God, the term 
is not only not ambiguous, but very expressive. I want 
my brother to explain how, if God and the man Jesus, 
both make but one person, he can divide them so as to 
have one to know what the other does not ? I want him 
to tell us, if God and man make one Christ in but one 
person ; and as he says, God left the man to die on the 
cross, which was the one person ? the God who left, or the 
man who remained ? If the God who left was a person, 
and there was but one ; then no person remained on the 
cross — no person suffered — no person died — no person 
was buried — no person rose — and thus he destroys the 
whole plan of salvation ; but, if he says that the God that 
left was not a person, then he falls into the Atheism of 
which he accused me. If he says that the God who left 
was a person, and the man who remained was also a per- 
son, then he has two persons in Christ, and the creed is 
false. Answer it as he will, the dilemma is unavoidable. 
His creed is illogical, and his argument must be so; he 
cannot avoid it. He has not yet answered my argu- 
ments relating to the three persons. Come, my brother, 
what are they ? If they are three angels, they would 
not, united, make one God ! If they be three Gods, then 
they are not one. To say they are three persons, is no 
answer. Three men are three persons ; to say they are 
three spirits would not answer. What are they, if they 
are not three men, nor three angels, nor three Sons of 
God — w T hat are they ? Come, my brother, you like us 
to define, tell me now, are they three men, angels, or 
Gods ? or if neither — what are they ? If you say three 
Gods, you will thus agree with your choice translation 



276 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

of Eloliim, the Gods. Which shall it be ? How much 
easier, as well as more Scriptural, to believe that Jesus 
is the only begotten Son of God, and that the Holy Ghost 
is the Spirit of God ? How plain was the teaching of 
Jesus — ever pointing us to the Father, as the only true 
God! 

Mk. Flood's Eighteenth reply : 

I suppose I have the evidence clear, that my brother 
had no other way of putting in his time, than by trying 
again, when he thought his brother was in a great 
dilemma, to increase his difficulty. It seems to me, that 
that hell that was spoken of, is still more uncertain than 
ever. My brother brings his little pamphlet, and he sets 
Dr. Summerbell against Dr. Clarke. It is a pity the 
poor doctor had not lived to this day, to witness the light 
of this second Luther. It was the poor man's misfor- 
tune, however. According to the general view, he was 
the best, at least among the very best, that had ever 
written on the original meaning of the sacred texts. 

My brother refers to the question of Christ having no 
power, and then having power. But I leave the question ; 
it has been passed over times enough. He said, if all 
power was given him then, then he had no power when 
he raised the dead ; this, truly, is a remarkable conclusion 
to be drawn from the premises. "All power is given 
into my hand." Therefore Jesus had no power when he 
raised the dead. If that is a logical conclusion, my 
knowledge of logic is very limited. 

My brother thinks his opponent's head is dizzy, and 
would like to persuade you that I am crazy. He would 
make you believe that I am a blower an(J striker, and on 
this morning that he has met a crazy man. Here, his 
bell will have to jingle louder about my ears, else I will 
not allow my head to become unsteady in the least. He 
wants to know how we shall have a mediator ? If Jesus 
Christ is God, then he was no mediator ; for he was not 
between God and man. If Jesus Christ were man, then 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 277 

he was not a mediator ; for then he could not be between. 
It is a question between Paul and my brother Summer- 
bell. There is one God and one Mediator between God 
and man — the man Christ Jesus. My brother, in so many 
words, denies the statement of Paul, and says it is not 
so. If Christ is a man, he can not be a mediator ; and 
if God, he can not be a mediator. I would have you 
know that not one position has been rendered doubtful, 
by any one statement, since I have been here ; much less 
has any point been given up, notwithstanding the touch- 
ing appeals made for us, to give up Trinitarianism, 
and his representing that I have nothing here but chaff 
and hulls, employing such phraseology as this, trying to 
convince me that my doctrine should be at once aban- 
doned, and tells vou that his brother is in some difficulty ; 
that his brother had felt himself in his last moments. 
But I suppose it was because he had persuaded himself 
that I would be closed up the first day, and sent home. 
And my brother here wants to persuade the people, and 
urges upon them, that my nerves are all shaken and my 
head dizzy, and that I am just about to yield up my own 
and adopt his system. But his Christ is neither God, 
angel, nor man. ISbw, here is the point to be met : I 
want to know what his Christ now is ? He says he is 
not God, nor man. Paul represents the human nature 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, to demonstrate the truth that 
his body was an earthly body. He says, " a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have ;" he had a body, an 
identical body, and took that body to heaven. If Christ 
is not God, he, through his humanity, does not become 
the visible likeness of God to the world, in the person of 
the man Jesus Christ. Thus, I assert again, it is the basest 
of idolatry to worship him. I do not make my brother 
say this, but I draw the conclusion from premises laid 
down. He desires to present Christ as an object of 
worship, and he is not able to tell you what Christ is. I 
tell you he is man and he is God — very and eternal 
God — one with the Father. " The Word was with God 



278 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

and was God," and was that Word that w T as made flesh, 
and we beheld his glory full of grace and truth. Now I am 
close in your neighborhood, and yet my brother insists 
that his opponent has retreated ; that he has avoided 
every issue, dodged every question. If we have a second 
edition of this class of speeches, in the future, it will be 
very interesting to one class of people. I glory in my 
doctrine. The more I reflect, the more I investigate, the 
more deeply is my heart in this glorious doctrine of our 
Saviour ! He is our Creator, our preserver, and under- 
stands all our wants ; he possesses all the perfections of 
the Divine mind. I have shown that he possesses all 
the attributes essential to the Divine mind ; he possesses 
omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and then 
I have shown, immutability. If all things pass away, 
we have the assurance that he is the same. What is he ? 
Would w T e could tell what he is. He says, my system 
would not save a cricket. . My system is sufficient to 
save a whole lost world. We have but one God ; three 
persons in one, and one in three — the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. I have a system here that proves sufficient 
for the salvation of all men. God's love to the world is 
manifested in his looking to the wants and necessities of 
all men; in providing a Saviour just suited to their 
condition, possessing all the infinite perfections of Jeho- 
vah, capable of supplying our needs and wants, and in 
whom, at the same time, were hidden the infinite trea- 
sures of the Divine wisdom. As I have shown, the true 
position is, that Christ, our Redeemer, is both God and 
man. Through the man Jesus Christ, we have access to 
God ; he is the medium of our approach, and appeareth in 
the presence of God for us. To-day he is there — the 
Almighty Being ; not a being destitute of knowledge ; 
nor a being that may be imperfect. If, as my opponent 
says, he is neither God nor angel, if he can conceive of 
a being that is not the creature nor God, I want to know 
what it is. The doctrine of the Trinity, he asserts, is 
false — contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 279 

Five days has he been laboring, to prove that the doc- 
trine is contrary to the Word of God, and he closes his 
argument, turns round and supposes his opponent is just 
ready, and presses him to give up the ghost at once. My 
brother must have done a great work, that he has van- 
quished his opponent. I assume, the only begotten Son 
of God is the only begotten of the Father, and he states 
I have two Gods. I quote Luke, to show that the Virgin, 
overshadowed with the power of the Highest, con- 
ceived and bare a Son. I showed him that he was the 
Son of David and of Abraham, and was the God of Abra- 
ham and of David. 

I propose to lift the flood-gates a little while, and give 
my brother a. passage homeward. You may take this 
for braggadocia ; but it is my purpose to let the wind out 
of his sails. I sympathize with you, my brother, on your 
way homeward, but I must necessarily perform my work. 
My brother has been anxious to make you believe that 
I have failed in argument. Not in any sense. The doctrine 
of the Trinity is the doctrine of the Bible, sustained by 
the whole of the Word of God. I call heaven and this 
congregation to witness, I have not been sensible of the 
slightest interference with those truths, since the com- 
mencement of this argument. We intend to expose our 
views of Methodism, and let it go open-handed to the 
world, and preach the true doctrine ; we come outspoken, 
and hesitate not to invite the world to examine. This 
Word of God is our Redeemer God — our Christ whom 
we worship in spirit and in truth. All I say to my 
brother, is, that I wish he had served this Master and 
never done him wrong. I have served Christ for seven- 
teen years, now, and bowed at the shrine of him who is 
the only living and true God. I have worshiped him 
united as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and he has 
never done me wrong. Then, why should I betray him, 
and turn my back upon his bleeding cross ? I am sure 
my brother will not be offended at this appeal, will he i 
I challenge my brother to produce one instance, in which 



280 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

I have prevaricated ; and whatever may be the result of 
this discussion, I shall have the proud satisfaction, that 
I carry within, the consciousness that I have acted as an 
honorable, honest man, and not tried by any means, to 
prejudice the argument, neither in the pulpit nor out of 
it, and sought no advantage of my opponent. I urge 
you to weigh this, and not let it pass from the mind, by a 
mere statement, that no answers have been given to the 
arguments advanced by the brother from Cincinnati. A 
very large portion of the audience imagine that much 
has been done. If anything has been done to show the 
absurdity of the Trinitarian doctrine, with regard to the 
point at issue, I hope it will be pursued. He says I am 
afraid of the publication of this book. Neither in public 
or private have I expressed any objection. I could have 
desired to present my thoughts in a more connected 
manner, than I can do in following the tedious course of 
my friend. When all earthly friends fail, you will find 
me clinging to the cross of Christ, as my hope of salva- 
tion ; as my only refuge, and only hope, you will find me 
looking to Christ — as the only hope for the lost and per- 
ishing — as the great Captain of Salvation — equal with 
the Father and the Holy Ghost, in one person. 

I have asserted the essential omnipresence of Jehovah, 
and the Psalmist says, "If I ascend to heaven, thou art 
there," &c. So you see, according to the language of 
the Psalmist, God pervades inmensity of space. But my 
brother gives him identity somewhere, though he does 
not pretend to be explicit. It is enough for me to know 
that God is everywhere — that he is ubiquitous. My 
brother himself tells of his divine omnipresence ; however 
he may limit it, or however circumscribe it. I took the 
liberty, in the discussion, to state that it was a mysteri- 
ous subject, and he turned round, saying it was so. It 
might be thought a convenient opportunity to make an 
impression, that he had made a point in doctrine — some 
point that his brother had denied. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 281 

Mr. Summerbell's Nineteenth address : 

My friends — Because I read an argument from a 
printed pamphlet of my own, on Jer. xxiii, 6, to avoid 
the trouble of writing it again, my brother calls me, Dr. 
Summerbell versus Dr. Clarke. But, my friends, Dr. 
Clarke is on my side on this text, so that it is Drs. Sum- 
merbell and Clarke versus Dr. Flood. And I am sure 
that the text will admit of no other construction than 
that I gave ; for they admit that the Trinity draws its 
authority from the New Testament, only ; then, why do 
they go to the Old? On this text, Jer. xxiii, 6, viz: 
■npis mrr ttnjr "wa )uw nn ve-zeh shemo aslier yik- 
reu yehovah tsidkenu, translated in the Septuagint, xao 

tovto to ovofia awtov o xa%£6£L avtov xvpvos luos&sx \ that is, "And 

this is his name which the Lord shall call him, Josedek." 
Clarke says, " In his days Judah shall be saved, and 
Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby 
she shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUS- 
NESS ! " 

" I doubt not, that some persons will be offended with 
me for depriving them, by this translation, of a favorite 
argument for proving the divinity of our Saviour from 
the Old Testament — but I cannot help it ; I have done it 
with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am 
morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly 
admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have 
so translated it before me, in an age when there could 
not possibly, be any bias or prejudice, either for or against 
the fore-mentioned doctrine — a doctrine which draws 
its decisive proofs from the New Testament only. As to 
those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, 
they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew 
critics." — Clarke, Jer. xxiii, 6. 

He re-states my argument, "If Christ be very man, 
then he can not be mediator between God and men, be- 
cause he is man ; and if he be l very God, 5 then he can 
not be mediator betiveen God and men, because he is 
God — c For a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God 
24 



282 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

is one." 5 Gal. iii, 20. He quotes, "There is one God 
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
Jesus," 1 Tim. ii, 5 ; but Paul did not say, " very man," 
nor did he mean " very man," for he did not believe that 
Christ was " very man." Paul savs, " The first man 
was of the earth, earthy ; but the second man is the Lord 
from heaven" 1 Cor. xv, 47. One thing I wish you 
to notice, mark, and remember. Every solitary effort 
against the true doctrine fails, and every text when ex- 
amined, comes out " right side up with care," for the 
Christian doctrine ; but when I attack his system, he can 
neither clear it up, nor defend it. He has but a " very 
man " sacrifice, yet I have quoted Clarke every day, that 
" God will no more accept of man's blood for sacrifice, 
than he w T ill swine's blood," but he takes no notice of it. 
My brother says, that some one (?) declared that he w r ould 
not last one day in this discussion ! Now T all my friends 
told me that he was a very smart man. He now declares 
that he has not abandoned one position. That is good ! 
Did you not admit that God has a body, contrary to your 
creed ? Did you not admit that Christ w r as divided three 
days and three nights, contrary to your creed ? O, yes, 
brother, don't go back after coming out so far — Come 
on ! My brother does not yet explain about worshiping 
all of his God, or all of his Christ. If his God has a 
human body, then he worships a creature. If his Christ 
is part, very man, and he worships him all, then he wor- 
ships a creature. We worship Christ as the Son of God. 
Heb. i, 6, " When he bringeth the first begotten into the 
world, he saith, let all the angels of God worship him." 
Did God mean himself? Did he mean himself when he 
said, w Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a scepter 
of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom, for thou 
hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore 
God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
gladness above thy fellows ? " Angels worship the 
Lamb that was slain. Rev. v, 12. My brother thinks, 
dame Nature made my head wrong. Any thing to 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 283 

get off the question. Let me remind yon, my brother, 
that my head is not the question. 

My brother can not see how it is, that we are not 
Arians. Arms held entirely different views; views 
much nearer my brother's — only Arius' created Son of 
God was much older, and perhaps, greater than my bro- 
ther's. With Arius, the Son of God was the first being 
created in eternity ; but with my brother, the Son of God 
is only about 1800 years old. That is the difference. 
Neither he nor my brother believes in a Son of God truly 
begotten of the Father before all worlds. I will read 
from Neander : 

"Arius certainly did not believe that he was preaching 
a new doctrine, but only bringing out and establishing 
the old church subordination system ; without which, it 
seemed to him, neither the monarchical principle of the 
Triad, nor the self-subsistent personality of the Logos 
could be maintained." — Neander, Vol. ii, p. 361. 

" He (Arius) was intending simply to defend the old 
doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity, against 
Sabellian and Gnostic opinions." — Ibid. p. 365. 

" Eusebius was of opinion, that it was impossible to 
express the truth after the manner of men, in any other 
way, than by saying, the existence of the Father precedes 
the existence and origin of the Son." — Ibid. p. 368. 

My brother challenges any medium between God and 
the creature ; let me read him the views of the early 
Christians. Neander, i, p. 605, states, " The prevailing 
view, in the Western church," to be "one divine essence 
in the Father and the Son, but at the same time, a sub- 
ordination in the relation of the Son to the Father." 
Now unless this divine essence was created, which my 
brother will not say, the subordinate Son uncreated, was 
a medium between God and the creature. The whole 
church was comprised in what was called the Eastern 
and Western, and on p. 608, Neander says, u that these 
same views prevailed in the Eastern church till late in the 
fourth century." Also, the Gothic nations believed that 



284 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

the Father was greater than the Son ; but not that the 
Son was created. — Wadington, p. 117. 

We read in the Bible, that Christ is the mediator be- 
tween God and men ; that he is God's Son, and that God 
is his Father. Would my brother call God's only begot- 
ten Son, " begotten before all worlds," as per ISTicene 
creed, a creature ? Dare my brother say that ? But 
still he denies a medium ; then let me prove it further by 
his orthodox fathers, as he would term them. Neander 
says of the adoption of omoousion : " The majority of the 
council might perhaps agree in the articles against that 
part of the Arian creed, which placed the Son of God on 
a level with creatures, yet the definitions of the u^oovatov 
were at variance with the oriental type of doctrine, hence 
there arose much opposition," &c, yet, he says, Eusebius 
finally accepted it ; for it, " according to his interpreta- 
tion, denoted nothing else than the exaltation of the Son 
of God above all comparison with created beings, and his 
perfect likeness to the Father." These saw a medium. 

" There were many others who adopted the Nicentf 
creed in the same sense with Eusebius, interpreting it in 
accordance with their own doctrinal system ; so that the 
opoovtiov was nothing more than a designation of the 
bfioiotr^ na* ovalav (likeness in respect to essence). At 
first, seventeen bishops, who probably belonged to the 
strictly Arian party, declined to go with^ the majority ; 
but as the creed was to be made known under the im- 
perial authority, and threatened all who would not 
adopt it with the loss of their places and condemnation 
as refractory subjects, the greater part of these yielded 
through fear." — Neander, Vol. ii, p. 376-7. 

Mosheim says : " Dr. Clarke maintained an equality of 
perfections in the three persons, but a subordination of 
nature in point of existence and derivation." Vol. ii, 315, 

You see my brother fails in every thing. Now, 1 chal- 
lenge him to show how he worships all his Christ with- 
out worshiping a creature ; but he can not do it — mark 
that. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 285 

Will my brother still say, that there is no medium be- 
tween God and the creature ? We will see. I can bring 
him floods of authority on that point if necessary. My 
argument on the three divine persons, who are all infinite, 
and possess every attribute of Deity, my brother has not 
yet answered. If three persons, possessing every possible 
perfection of God infinitely, are three Gods, then my 
brother's three persons are three Gods, according to his 
own argument. If they are not three Gods, three angels, 
nor three men, what are they ? to what class of beings 
do they belong ? You see how he dodges all my argu- 
ments, promising day after day, that he will answer them 
w T hen the proper time comes. 

He says that Christ is Omnipotent ; yet Christ says, 
" I can of mine own self do nothing.' 5 He says that 
Christ is Omnipresent; yet Jesus says, " I am glad for 
your sakes I was not there." Which will you believe ? 
He says, Christ is Omniscient ; but Christ says, u that 
he knows not the clay nor the hour." Who is correct, 
Jesus or my brother ? Let my brother answer. Clarke 
represents the Son as simply man. I will read him on 
Luke i, 25. 

"Behold the greatness of the man Christ Jesus: 1st. 
Because that human nature that should be born of the Vir- 
gin, was to be united to the divine nature. 2d. In con- 
sequence of this, that human nature should be called, in 
a peculiar sense, the Son of the most High God, because 
God would produce it in her womb, without the inter- 
vention of man. 3d. He shall be the everlasting Head 
and Sovereign of his church. 4th. His government and 
kingdom shall be eternal, therefore, also, that holy thing, 
(or person) shall be called the Son of God. We may 
plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the 
appellation, Son of God, to the divine nature of Christ. 

" Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due 
respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of 
the eternal Sonship of Christ, is, in my opinion, anti- 
Scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine 1 reject, 



286 . DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

for the following reasons : If Christ be the Son of God, 
as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity, 
prior, consequently superior to him. To say that he was 
begotten from all eternity is, in my opinion, absurd, and 
the phrase, Eternal Son, is a positive self-contradiction." 

Such views are still inferior, in honoring the Son, to 
those of Arius, of which Neander says : 

" A condemnation of these Arian propositions, might 
doubtless, have been carried through, if on the other 
side, the party defending the Homoousion, (now called 
Trinitarian,) had not raised an opposition to the domi- 
nant church doctrine of the East, and if certain in- 
dividuals had not come out as mediators between the 
contending parties. They also endeavored to establish 
peace, and are called 'authors of peace,' especially the 
learned bishop Eusebius, of Csesarea." — Nean. ii, 373. 

Still, my brother objects to Mark xiii, 32, "Of that day 
and hour know r eth no man, no, not the Son." He goes 
to Clarke ; but Clarke himself can not explain it. It is 
very much in the way, and must be got rid of. Clarke 
goes to Macknight ; but says that he is " afraid " that 
Macknight's explanation "only cuts the knot, but does 
not untie it." My brother says, Clarke does not think it 
Bible ; and why, pray ? simply because it contradicts his 
theory. He objects that it is not found in the parallel 
passages in the other Gospels. A poor reason, truly. 
More than half of John might be rejected on the same 
grounds; but Matt, xxiv, 36, says the "Father only" 
knows ; so that denying one text, will not relieve them. 
It is surely a false theory that tears the Bible to pieces in 
this way. This way of explaining the text, by denying 
it, is exceedingly awkward. So many passages are con- 
stantly in his way ; but it is not with me that he has to 
contend, but with God's holy book. If he could only 
drag out all these texts, and could get the Trinity in 
their place, why he could soon prove his creed. Had 
he made the Bible, he would have put it there ; but 
those who made the Bible, were, not Trinitarians. The 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 287 

God of heaven did not believe in the Trinity, nor did 
the prophets or apostles, He has not been able to find 
one single text that sanctions such a belief. But instead 
of finding it in texts, texts have to be explained away, 
and denied, to bring it in. It is a false theory that thus 
tears the Bible in pieces. Do not believe him, my 
friends, when he tells you that your salvation depends 
upon your holding on to such a belief: thousands were 
saved before such a faith was thought of, and you may 
be, though you should renounce it. My brother says, that 
I said, that his system would not save a cricket. I said 
that if he would take what we believe, from his system, 
that it would not sake a cricket. Take away the Bible, 
and leave only his Constitution — take away the true God, 
and leave only his Trinity — take away the Son of God, 
and leave only his human nature — take out of it all the 
Christian's faith, and a cricket would consider itself in 
danger upon it. Clarke thinks that Jesus must have 
known the day of the end of the world, for Daniel did. 
Now, I deny that Daniel did know it. He says that 
Clarke refers it to the destruction of Jerusalem. How- 
ever Clarke may interpret it, Matt, xxiv, 36, says " the 
Father only," and consequently, that excludes from that 
knowledge all other persons. 

My brother has not satisfactorily answered this text, 
and he is yet groaning under the embarrassment of mak- 
ing two persons the Father of Christ. He said that the 
Holy Ghost f was as truly a person as the Father, because 
he begat Christ as truly as the Father did ; but now he 
tries to shift the difficulty off on Luke ; but Luke was 
not a Trinitarian, and will not help him. He tries, in 
vain, to make Luke a scape-goat to bear the sins of his 
creed. Let my brother explain how two persons begat 
Christ. Do not leave it, my brother. If you are crowded 
for time, it is your own fault. You have put off too 
much for to-day. Again, he says that he will not aban- 
don his system. Persons are often most confident, just 
before they turn. The darkest hour is just before day. 



288 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

and there is no better sign that he is troubled with mis- 
givings, than this constantly declaring, that he vrill not. 
He calls heaven and earth to witness that he is not 
beaten in this debate. It always looks as though a man 
considered his case bad, when he offers to swear to it, 
before he is asked. He declares that he has been honest ; 
who disputes it ? and that he will stick to his doctrine. 
If he prefers it, let him do so ; but he will w r ear it more 
loosely than ever before, I am certain. It will not enter 
into the deep consciousness of his soul ; but hang about 
him as a loose and superfluous garment. You see how 
he manages ; he lets nearly all my arguments go unan- 
swered, and goes off into an extasy of exhortation — gives 
us a good talk about holding on to his religion, and de- 
clares he won't give up his creed, nor his Saviour. Who 
wants him to give up his Saviour ? I do not ! As for 
his creed, there is little left that he has not already given 
up. I want him to hold on to his Saviour, and be as 
happy as he can to the end of his life, and hope that he 
may hereafter see his Saviour at the right hand of God, 
in the kingdom of heaven. But he stills throws in a 
little frolic and a little fun ; and if by this and loud words, 
and hard sayings, and passing over Jordan, and seeing 
the pebbles, he can create a little protracted meeting ex- 
citement, and get your minds diverted from the argu- 
ment — as the affrighted partridge lures the enemy away 
from her nest — why let him do it. 

He still, as he has done all along, threatens to raise the 
flood-gates, and give me a water passage homeward ; it 
has been flood, flood, flood, with him, but still there is 
no water — like a dry pump, he only sucks wind. There 
is no danger ; there will be no shower ; there may be 
thunder, but no lightning ; all of you keep your seats. 
He has not answered my numerous arguments ; he has not 
answered his own authority, that there are two other per- 
sons in the Trinity, beside God, and about Christ having 
two persons for his Father; and about Christ being 
God, because he knew that his brother Lazarus was 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 289 

dead ! He has not told us what the three persons are ; 
whether they are three Gods ; three Sons of God ; three 
angels ; three men, or to what class of intelligences they 
belong. If the three persons are not three angels, men, 
nor Sons of God, what are they ? Now, brother, don't 
evade this question any longer. 

I want him also to answer this argument : He says 
that his Christ is very God and very man ; yet, both the 
God and man combined, make but one person, and 
that God abandoned the " very man" on the cross. Now 
the argument is this, was God who left, one person ? If 
my brother denies it, then he falls into Atheism ; but if 
Christ, composed of both God and man, was only one 
person, then if God was a person, it follows that when 
God abandoned the "very man," one person was gone; 
and as the two made but one person, then all the person 
there was there, was gone. So that no person died for 
our sins, no person was buried, no person rose again 
from the dead, and our faith is vain — w T e are yet in our 
sins. My brother still claims that Jesus is self-existent ; 
but he says : "I live by the Father." Jesus ever ac- 
knowledged his dependence upon the Father. At the 
raising of Lazarus, he said : " I thank thee, O Father, 
that thou hast heard me." He also directs us, when we 
pray, to say " Our Father." 

When Paul says, " all things are put under Christ," 
he immediately adds, "it is manifested that Tie is ex- 
cepted, which did put all things under Mm" 1 Cor. 
xv, 27. And " when all things shall be subdued to 
Christ, then shall the Son also, himself, he subject to 
him that put all things under him" 1 Cor. xv, 28. 
Will almighty God ever be subject to another being ? 

God has an " only begotten Son" John iii, 18. Was 
Jesus Christ an only begotten Son ? If so, can he be 
God the Father ? 

There are, in the New Testament, seventeen passages, 
wherein the Father is styled the one, or only God, and 
nearlv two hundred in which he is styled God abso- 
25 



290 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

lutely ; while there is not one in which the Son is so 
called. 

There are ninety passages in which all prayer and 
praises are directed to God the Father, and which imply 
that all things should be directed to his glory and honor; 
and the manner of address is uniformly through Christ; 
and out of 1300 passages, wherein the word, God, is 
mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of 
a plurality of persons. 

Those passages in which Jesus Christ is declared 
positively, or by implication, to be subordinate to the 
Father, deriving from him his being, receiving from 
him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly in 
subjection to the authority and will of the Father, are 
in number above three hundred. 

In a word, the supremacy of the Father, over the Son, 
is the simple and indisputable doctrine of the Bible ; 
whereas the doctrine of the Son's equality, or identity 
with the Father, is clothed in mystery, encumbered with 
difficulties, and dependent, at best, on but a few pas- 
sages for support. 

The Trinity is unknown in the Bible. A man having 
the Bible alone would never find a Trinity. If he would, 
let my brother produce the texts — even one single text. 
The word was introduced among Christians by Theophi- 
lus, bishop of Antioch, in the latter part of the second 
century, but not so soon applied to the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. The doctrine was commenced at Nice in 
325 — received its finishing touch in 381, but was not en- 
tirely finished till 681. Gibbon iv, 422. It was adopted 
in Spain, in 589, Gib. 345 ; in England, in 596 ; see Mil- 
ner, i, 519 ; and Bede, lib. 2, ch. 4 & 20 ; in Africa, in 
534 ; see Gib. iv, 114. Our views are spreading now in 
every denomination. Many of the most eminent bishops 
of England hold our views of the Trinity, as witnessed 
by Mosheim. Since the first of this century, over two 
hundred ministers of the Church of England have peti- 
tioned to have the Athanasian creed taken from the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 291 

Prayer-book. Over 300 churches in New England have 
renounced the doctrine during the same period. In the 
work of an Episcopal clergyman ( ,; One of Three Hun- 
dred, 5 ') published by the Protestant Epis. S. S. Union, 
p. 185, the learned author says, " Again I look over the 
Presbyterian and sectarian world — German, French, 
Dutch, Scotch, Irish, English, Dane, Saxon, Prussian, 
American, &c, how many pastors, and how many flocks 
do I see, by whom the Majesty of an everlasting Trinity, 
&c, are now regarded as the exploded eccentricities of 
the half-emancipated Reformers, (One of Three Hun- 
dred, p. 184"). And on the same page, he mourns that 
even where Michael Servetus was burnt by Calvin, " So- 
cinus exults over Calvin" — Unitarianism over Trinita- 
rianism, p. 184. 

Mr. Flood's Nineteenth reply : 

For th& seventy-seventh time, perhaps, I speak of the 
miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, in which my 
brother claims that I say he has two fathers. I hold 
there are not two Gods — I acknowledge but one — and that 
the miraculous conception was in the following manner: 
" And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the High- 
est shall overshadow thee : therefore, also, that holy thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God." Luke i, 35. I assumed here that Jesus Christ 
was the only-begotten Son of God. I never once asserted 
that he had two fathers. This language my opponent 
has labored to put into my mouth, and crowd down your 
throats. I now assert that there is no ground for any 
such statements, and never was. I hope to treat my op- 
ponent honorably in this debate. He quotes, " The first 
Adam was made man." I answer him again, that the 
first man was created and formed of earth, by the hand 
of God ; was made a man, not a child or infant, but a 
full-grown man ; and the same power that formed him, 
and made him a living soul of the dust of the earth, was 



292 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

capable of producing another. I now record again, there 
is not a single proposition that my brother has brought 
forward, nor a single text of Scripture, but what has been 
answered by me ; and yet he tells you of a thousand texts 
he has produced which I have not noticed ! 

I promise you, right here, that if I expend all my wind, 
I will speak out, distinctly and plainly, that I may be 
understood by every sensible man — even if my brother 
should call you his " dear, sweet friends," as he did the 
other day ; but I will try to use language which does not 
sound like a mother petting her child. He says that 
Christ is not angel and not man — that he is not created. 
If not a creature, then, of course, he is uncreated ; and 
if uncreated, eternal ; and if eternal, God. Here is the 
conclusion drawn fairly from the premises. This is the 
position I assume : that he is not created, but that all 
things were made by him, and for him. 

With regard to the reports of my brother, that I have 
been in great trouble, and very much concerned respect- 
ing the result of this discussion ; and that he has quoted 
a thousand passages of Scripture and more, and I would 
not answer him; if the eye and countenance are any 
index of the sentiments of the heart, I know what the 
result of this discussion will be ; for I see some faces 
that are exceedingly long ; and I noticed, my brother, 
when he went away, looked as if he had been deserted 
by his best friends. When argument fails, he resorts to 
the language of Billingsgate ; and he says, if we take his 
creed away from ours, we have nothing left — not enough 
to save a cricket ! The other day he introduced devil- 
authority; now he introduces cricket-theology; and at 
another time, partridge-theology ! I regret that he de- 
scends to use such language as this ; and he complains 
very much of my play of words. You will remember 
he gave me credit for four things ; and this language he 
repeats again, and says I remind him of a dry pump that 
sucks only wind ; but he says this because 1 have taken 
the wind out of his sail. The proposition from which my 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 293 

brother wanders is this : " Is the doctrine of the Trinity, 
as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist Protestant 
Church, especially with regard to the equality of Jesus 
Christ with the Father in substance, power, glory, and 
eternity, contrary to the teaching of the Word of God ?" 
But he goes off to talk about cricket salvation, and the 
amount of truth that would be necessary to save a cricket, 
and such kind of stuff ! I can not conceive how ideas 
so limited in themselves, should occupy his mind, unless 
he abounds in such ideas ; for "out of the abundance of 
the heart the mouth speaketh. 1 ' 

He talks about my exhortation, and seems desperately 
afraid of the impression that will be made by the great 
fundamental truths upon which the hopes of the world 
rest ; and he is careful to admonish you that other exhor- 
tations are to come : this is a great trouble to him. He 
says, that worship is to be paid to God, through Christ. 
I wish to inquire, if we are to understand by that that he 
does not worship Christ ? You will remember that angels 
in heaven worship him : the language was quoted, " Let 
all the angels of God worship him." Paul does not say 
that they should worship God through him. The spirit 
of revelation proves that he is the proper object of wor- 
ship; that all the angels of God worship him — which 
they, doubtless, do, as the Creator of the world. My 
brother told us that Christ was not a creature, and not God. 
And if he is not a creature, then he is uncreated and 
eternal, co-equal with the Father in existence, as in other 
respects ; and yet he declares that we have a little God 
and a great God. He complains now, that I asserted my 
determination not to abandon my position ; but, he adds, 
the darkest hour is just before the morning breaks. I 
hope, when he goes from this place, that he will do me 
no injustice by asserting that I yield my position ; for I 
aver that his powers of argument have never made the 
slightest impression upon me. 

I sincerely desire my brother's conversion to the truth ; 
and I have no desire that he should continue to drive on 



294 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

his godless boat, but that he should come under better 
influences, and have evidence of the great truth that God 
is one, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, equal in substance, 
power, glory, and eternity ; that Jesus Christ is very God 
and very man, one unitedin three persons, never, never to 
be separated. I am sorry to discover a disposition to a 
little fever in my brother's constitution; but I will bathe 
him with a little cold water occasionally. 

He quotes Clarke to prove that the doctrine of the 
Trinity receives its only support from the New Testa- 
ment — the Old Testament w T as a shadow of things to 
come. I mentioned that Dr. Macknight, Benson, and 
Dr. Coke, all harmonized in their views on this subject ; 
and these are all against Dr. Summerbell. I ask if I have 
not, all the time, been compelled to occupy an affirma- 
tive position ? and now he is desperately concerned about 
the exhortation that is to close this discussion ; and that 
will recall, as far as possible, all the arguments I have 
advanced. If he has advanced arguments that I have 
not noticed, it has been because they were undiscernible 
to the naked eye ; not that I have not been able to de- 
scend into the depths of his mighty argument. 

Judging from the whole production with which he has 
favored us, I suppose, that since he came into the posses- 
sion of his vigor and strength, he has been devoting him- 
self and his attention to this particular subject ; and, 
though the mountain has greatly labored, the world must 
judge w r hat it has produced. 

Mr. Summerbell's Twentieth address : 

My brother talks a good deal of my greatness ; my 
friends, generally, are not so favorably impressed. If I 
had a few such friends as my brother, I should have a 
great name in the world. I am glad, however, that he 
thinks well of me. He now says, that he has answered 
all of my arguments. It is well he told us, for I was not 
aware of it. Next he says, that he will answer them ! 
Will it be here, or somewhere else ? You will see. It 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 295 

is admitted, on the best authority, that the Trinity was 
not revealed in the Old Testament. Now is it not an 
odd thing, that four thousand years should have passed 
away before the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed ? 
My brother denounces such authors as I have quoted, 
i. £., Clarke, Barnes, Neander, &c, and says that they 
agree with me — that they have got into the Trinitarian 
church, but don't belong there. At this rate he will find 
the majority against him. And are not the Scriptures 
equally against him ? He now says, in defiance of Clarke, 
that the Old Testament is full of texts which prove the 
equality of the Father and Son. Then why does he not 
produce them ? And that the suffering and atonement 
of Jesus Christ are as plainly set forth as in the New. 
True, but there is no discussion on that. He first said, 
that the two natures were united in Christ never to be 
separated ; then he said that they were separated three 
days and three nights, and now he says that they were 
never to be permanently separated. He says that he 
can not tell which Lord I thank ; that we have a big God 
and a little one. I might as courteously say, that I can 
not tell which God he worships. We have no big 
God and little God. We have but one God ; we are not 
Trinitarians. That little God doctrine, sir, is not very 
reverential to Jesus ; I would rather you would not use 
it too much, for you will have to settle accounts with 
Jesus for it. He speaks of the wise men worshiping the 
babe that was born. But does he believe that that babe 
was the mighty God ? On Is. ix, 6, " Unto us a child 
is born," he tells us that he does not ; " that the child 
bom was not the mighty God." Does he then approve 
of their worshiping the babe, or not ? He again con- 
trives a plan to get rid of me. My presence seems to 
agitate my brother greatly, and he is constantly devising 
some means to get rid of me. He first threatened to 
give me a water passage home ; then to fill my sails with 
wind and speed me along. Then he expressed a great 
deal of regret at my course ; then talked angrily, but 
anon gets into a better humor again. 



296 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

My brother says, that I had the letter of the brother 
who joined the Christian church yesterday, before I came 
into the house. Very well ! 

Flood. — I ask if my brother saw that letter before he 
came into this house ? 

Summerbell. — Yes. What of that ? 

The young man* wishes to speak, and appeals to the 
Moderators. 

Moderators. — As his motives are impeached, he has 
a right to explain. 

Flood. — I object. I appeal to the rules of the dis- 
cussion. (They are read, and prohibit him.) 

Moderators. — It is decided that the young man may 
explain, after the discussion of the day has closed. 

Summing up. — 1. My brother thinks that I have mis- 
represented him, in regard to Christ having two Fathers. 
I have not. He told us that the Father was the first, and 
the Holy Ghost the third person in the Trinity. He then 
went to the Scriptures, to prove that the Holy Ghost (the 
third person) begat Christ ; then turned to another text, 
to show that the Father (the first person in the Trinity) 
begat him, and thought that from this the Holy Ghost 
must be a person as truly as the Father, for he begat 
Christ as truly as the Father. According to that, two 
persons begat Christ, and two persons are the Father of 
him ! My brother could not explain it, and he never 
will, for it is a part of a whole system of error. 

2. My friend has been unable, in the five days 5 dis- 
cussion, to produce one single text which proves the 
personality of the Holy Ghost, as a distinct person from 
the Father. But he has rather admitted that it is not a 
person, by comparing it to a pendulum swinging beneath 
God's throne, vibrating through heaven, earth, and hell. 

3. Neither has he produced one text which proves that 
the Holy Ghost is God, distinct from the Father. 

*The young man, Mr. Allison, professed that he entertained the 
best of feelings toward his Methodist brethren, and that he simply- 
left them on account of his convictions of Truth, &c. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 297 

4. I have proved to him, that according to Trinitarian- 
ism, there would be at least six spirits in the Godhead, 
and have vainly demanded of him, to show why or 
wherein, God the Father was not as much a spirit as the 
Holy Ghost, according to his theory. 

5. In answer to his argument on the text, " The grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you," I referred him to 
Rev. i, 4, where the grace of the seven spirits is invoked. 
His reply was, that here John invoked the grace of seven 
angels, &c, thus confounding his own logic. 

6. I answered his argument on "baptizing in the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," by showing that 
thus also the Holy Ghost and fire were associated in bap- 
tism ; God with the Lamb in worship ; and the Lamb 
with Moses in the song of Moses and the Lamb ; and 
David with God in worship ; 2 Ohron. xxix, 20 ; which 
would make them all Gods, according to his mode of 
reasoning. 

7. He has not defended the hard language they use 
concerning Christ, when hard pressed. 

8. He has not attempted to answer my argument on 
Elohim, except by quoting ex parte authors, that it 
should be translated " Gods;' 5 thus teaching three Gods, 
contrary to his creed. 

9. He has not answered my argument, showing the 
contradictions among Trinitarians and how they anathe- 
matize each other, being altogether unsettled about what 
the true doctrine is. 

10. He has not answered my argument, proving that 
his system in reality inculcates the idea of three Gods, 
into which error Trinitarians always run when hard 
pressed. 

11. I proved that his own position, on the Divine 
attributes, if true, annihilated the Father; to which he 
has not responded. 

12. He has never told us yet, whether he will worship 
all of his Christ — "very God and very man" — the 
Divine, and what he calls the human nature or "crea- 



298 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

ture," which is united to Christ in one person, and 
which, with the three persons of the Trinity, now dwells 
in heaven. 

13. He has not told us, whether he will worship all of 
his God, or whether he rejects "God's body," as he calls 
it, from his worship. 

14. I proved to him, that all the " fathers" of the 
church w T ere against him, and he has not been able to 
find the Trinity in one of them. 

15. I proved to him, that all the earliest Christian 
kings, emperors, historians, and nations, were opposed to 
the Trinity, to which he has not made a solitary reply. 

16. I showed him that the word Trinity was jfer^ intro- 
duced into the church by Theophilus, of Antioch, after 
the middle of the second century, but not applied to the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, till a much later period. 

17. I have proved to him, that the Trinity was not 
finished till A. D. 651. 

18. My friend has given up the word TRINITY ! 
which stands at the HEAD of his Articles of Religion. 

19. He admits that the second person in the Trinity 
is not the Eternal Son of God, contrary to all orthodox 
faith. 

20. He concedes that God now has a body, contrary 
to Art. I, of his creed, though he says that he had no 
body for four thousand years. 

21. He admits that the human and Divine natures in 
Christ were separated three days and three nights, con- 
trary to his creed, Art. II. 

22. But still my friend, this morning, calls heaven to 
witness that he has given nothing up ! 

23. He challenged me to explain how Christ could be 
neither the supreme God nor a creature. In reply, I 
showed him that he was the only begotten of the Father, 
and quoted Neander and Mosheim, showing that such 
was the opinion of the fathers, and the most learned men 
of the Christian church. 

24c. My brother has failed to find the Trinity in the 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 299 

Bible. In five days' discussion, he has failed to produce 
one single text to show that we should reverence the 
Trinity, or worship the Trinity, or in any way make use 
of the word Trinity. 

25. He has failed to produce one text which says there 
are three persons in the Godhead ; or one text, which 
calls Christ " very man," or says that he is equal with the 
Father, in substance, power, glory, and eternity ; or that 
the Holy Ghost is a person. All these positions my 
brother has been unable to sustain, but puts off answer- 
ing my remarks in reference to them, till some future 
time. And now, here we are, at the last day and hour 
of the debate. He has put them off, from time to time, 
thinking that they would pass from the mind and be 
forgotten. 

26. In quoting texts, he has found himself unable to 
sustain his doctrine ; and has introduced words which 
were not found in the Scriptures, and relied on texts 
which his own authors give up as not proving the doc- 
trine. 

27. He has quoted the Discipline, where he should 
have quoted the Bible, to prove his doctrine. 

28. Endeavoring to divert your minds from the main 
issue in the question, he has gone off into exhortation, 
instead of meeting the arguments ; and endeavored by 
slaps, thumps, and stamps on the pulpit, to create such 
a noise as to draw off the attention, just when he should 
have been arguing the point. 

29. It plainly appears that he himself feels that he has 
not proved his doctrine, by his so often exhorting his 
people not to give it up. As much as to say, Although 
I have not been able to prove it, yet I want you to take 
my word that you can not be saved without it. 

30. I showed him that Trinitarianism, according to 
their BEST theory, is only EQUAL to the lowest form of 
Socinian Unitarianism / each system having one God, 
and no more ; and each having one " very man sacri- 
fice," and no more. 



300 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

31. I proved that Trinitarianism, according to its worst 
view, divides the divine essence, and teaches three Gods ; 
rny brother himself contending that the Hebrew word, 
Elohvm, God, should be translated GODS. 

32. He has not attempted an answer to rny arguments 
on the infinite attributes, that they can not be bounded, 
measured, or stated as a given quantity. 

33. He has not answered my argument from John xi, 
15, where Jesus says, <c I am glad for your sakes that I 
was not there." 

34. He has failed to answer my arguments on the 
thousands of personal pronouns in the singular number, 
applied to the Divine nature — each one of which is an 
incontrovertible argument for the unity of God. 

35. He says that the three persons, Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, all now dwell in Christ ; thus making the 
three persons all dwell in him — another person, instead 
of making him one of the three persons. 

36. I showed that by what they call the Godhead, they 
mean simply the Divine nature, which is common to dif- 
ferent persons, or in which different persons exist, the 
same as in one human nature all mankind exist; and 
that their unity of God is no more a unity of God, than 
the unity of the human family, in one humanity, is a 
unity of man ; so that they, in reality, no more believe 
in simply one Gocl, than in one man. And I proved to 
him that the Hindoos, with a million of gods, claim to, 
and really do, believe in the unity of God, in the same 
manner that he does, and may be excused from the charge 
of believing in more than one God, as well as he. 

37. I proved from Dr. Clarke, that the Trinity was 
found among the Hindoo and Chinese idolaters, and 
worshiped there long before it was known in the Chris- 
tian church. (See John i, and Jer. xxiii, 6.) 

38. I demonstrated to him, that if Christ, both God 
and man, embraced but one person ; that then, when God 
left the man, according to his creed there was no person 
remaining on the cross, since there was only one person, 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 301 

and that person (God) had left ; so that no person died 
for us. 

39. I presented him with over thirty plain discrepan- 
cies in his Articles of Religion — and between them and 
their expositors — to which he has not deigned to reply. 
He has these yet to answer, or to let it be for ever known 
that he can not answer them. 

40. I showed him over thirty particulars in which they 
make the Son inferior to the Father — none of which he 
has answered. 

41. Where he has attempted replies to my texts, he 
has, in some places, doubted their truth, and in others, 
their genuineness ; but in no case has he found any of 
the peculiarities of his creed in the Word of God. 

42. He has complained that he knew not that I would 
certainly be here ; yet he himself set the time, and I 
received his letter informing me, the Saturday before 
coming here, on Monday — too late to reply. 

I have a few moments left, and not choosing to fill up 
my time with exhortation, I will present you with a 
number of texts on the unity of God. Whatever men 
may think, God is One, my friends ; and He will ever 
remain — eternally One. 

Ex. xx, 3, First commandment, "Thou shalt have no 
other Gods before me." Not us, as though there were 
three persons. 

Deut. vi, 4, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE 
Lord." Not Trinity. 

Job xxxi, 15, " Did not ONE fashion us ?" Not three. 

Zech. xiv, 9, "There shall be ONE Lord, and his 
name One." Not three. 

Malachi ii, 10, " Have we not all ONE Father ?" No- 
thing is said of three. 

Malachi ii, 10, " Hath not One God created us W 

Matt, xxiii, 9, " ONE is your Father." Not three. 

Matt, xix, 17, "None is good but ONE, that is 
God." Not three. 

Mark xii, 29, " The first of all the commandments is, 



302 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord." Not 
Trinity. 

Mark xii, 32, " There is ONE God, and there is none 
other but he." 

John viii, 41, " We have ONE Father, even God." 
Kom. iil, 20, "ONE God shall justify." 
1 Cor. viii, 4, " There is none other God but ONE." 
Not two others. 

1 Cor. viii, 6, "To us there is but ONE God the Fa- 
ther." Not two others. 

Gal. iii, 20, "God is ONE." Not God is triune. 
Eph. iv, 4-6, " ONE Lord, ONE God and Father of 
all, who is above all." Not equal simply. 

1 Tim. ii, 5, " There is ONE God and ONE Mediator." 
James ii, 19, "Thou believest in ONE God: thou 
doest well," &c. 

Isaiah xxx, 29, " God is called the mighty ONE." 
Isa. lvii, 15, "The High and Lofty ONE." 
Isa. xxxvii, 23, " The Holy ONE." Not Holy three. 
These are only sample texts — there are scores like 
them ; but none which, like the creeds and modern the- 
ology, say God is three. Could our brother thus pro- 
duce texts which read that God is three, surely he would 
do it. But he can not ; his doctrine is not in the Bible. 
I hope that my brother will take these texts into serious 
consideration, and remember that it is not a light matter 
to multiply persons in the Godhead. He can not find 
one place in all the Bible where it is said, that there is 
more than one person in the Godhead. I hope to see 
the day when not only he, but all my friends here, will 
agree w 7 ith me on this point. 

A word : debate is not my sphere. I undertook this 
work rather as a cross than because I desired it. But I 
must defend my blessed Saviour ; and to do this I must 
go wherever I am called : not that I wish to intimate that 
my brother does riot love him, too. I desire to advance 
the truth concerning my Saviour. How glorious it is to 
know that there are many scores in this house that love 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 303 

my Saviour ! May you all be partners in the joys of 
His love. May your lives be conformed to his life. May 
you strive in all your ways to be like him — to be con- 
formed to his image. If you will be like him, you must 
have his Spirit — you must act like him — feel like him — 
think like him, and speak like him. They know Christ 
best, and honor him most, who feel most of him in their 
hearts. Doubtless, God will pardon any small error of 
opinion, if the root of the matter be in us. We would 
act thus with an erring child ; and God is infinitely better 
than we are. And now, in closing this discussion, let 
me say that I part with my brother in all good feeling. 
Although some things may have been said which sounded 
hard, yet I am sure that I hold no hard feelings. I hope 
that we may all live as Christians, die as Christians, and 
appear in the Resurrection as Christians — on the fair 
banks of everlasting deliverance. And bless God ! when 
we see him as he is, then we will praise him as we 
ought. I thank you, gentlemen Moderators, for your 
faithful labors. I thank the audience for their patient 
attention. My brother will join with me in extending 
to all, our thanks. I thank my opponent for affording 
me this opportunity of advancing the truths of the Chris- 
tian church. 

I close the question by expressing my regard for both 
my brother and his people. I have respect and love for 
them — some near and dear to me were once attached to 
his creed, but have since joined the Christian church. I 
regard my Saviour as the Son of God ; and when we 
have passed from the scenes of time to those of eternity, 
I hope, we shall meet many from this discussion, who 
have here learned to regard him the same, and who will 
join in his praises for ever. May God guide us, by his 
Holy Spirit, is the prayer of your brother. May we all 
be humble — not lofty, proud, bigoted and cruel, but gen- 
tle, courteous, and inviting ; that we may win souls to 
Christ, and that we may enjoy salvation and life everlast- 
ing in him ! Amen. 



304 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Me. Flood's Twentieth reply : 

This is rather an interesting period in this discussion, 
however ultra some of it may have been. I heartily 
reciprocate all the personal feelings expressed by my 
brother, and in doing so, I speak the sentiments of my 
heart. At the same time, I would not have it under- 
stood, by that remark, that my confidence, in the slight- 
est degree, in anything that pertains to the great truths 
involved in this question, has suffered the least, by any 
part of the investigation, from the beginning to the 
present hour ; but I will not say anything, by which my 
brother may not feel himself flattered in my closing re- 
marks. He says his friend flattered him — and I hope he 
feels himself flattered. Amid the trials of life, when the 
spirit is oppressed, and w T hen we are in trying circum- 
stances, it is agreeable to our feelings to meet with the 
w T ord of cheering from those whom we respect, and my 
brother has expressed himself as entertaining a respect 
for his opponent. I am happy to hear him say that he 
feels himself flattered. He proceeds to inquire, " Did 
my friend answer the argument, that three persons in the 
Trinity, make three Gods ?" "Well, I think, about as 
nearly as I can recollect, that every time that my brother 
has alluded to that subject, I have answered him — a 
sufficient number of times, I think, for it to be remem- 
bered. 

I say there are three persons in the Godhead, and I 
have not time again to go over the texts to prove the 
personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — they 
will have a place in the memory of many of those as- 
sembled here. 

With regard to baptizing in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, I assume that, as there are three 
persons in the Godhead, an individual committing him- 
self to the sacred ordinance, is under equal obligation to 
all ; and this accords with the argument, that we should 
honor the Son, even as we honor the Father ; we are 
under obligation to do so. I insist, at all times, whilst I 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 305 

maintain a plurality of persons in the Godhead, I also 
maintain a oneness of being in God, as has been so fre- 
quently stated. This position was supported by some of 
the very texts quoted by my brother, in his endeavors to 
refute it ; every passage that asserts the unity of God, is 
a passage for me. I have said that no man has a more 
living confidence in the oneness of Jehovah, than I have ; 
that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in sub- 
stance, power, glory and eternity — that they are one God. 
I have assumed that the union of the humanity and the 
divinity, in the second person of the Trinity, is a myste- 
rious and wonderful union ; and I have never attempted to 
explain its mystery, nor would I undertake to explain the 
mystery of that union that subsists between the soul and 
body of every living man. I have not the slightest know- 
ledge how it is, that soul and body are united in one per- 
son, and yet be but one man ; the one, as I have shown, 
connected with the world of matter ;• the other with the 
world of spirit, mysteriously united in one person, — the 
one earthly and physical, the other spiritual and intellec- 
tual. I have not attempted to explain this, for the apostle 
says : "And without controversy, great is the mystery ot 
godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, be- 
lieved on in the world, and received up into glory." 
1 Tim. iii, 16. 

Mr. Summerbell. — My brother is bringing in new 
matter in his closing speech, contrary to the rules of 
the discussion. 

Mr. Flood. — I think not. I think I brought this text 
forward before. 

Moderators. — No. 

Mr. Summerbell. — He may go on, by permitting one 
word of explanation. 

Mr. Flood. — Very well. 

Mr. Summerbell. — " God manifest in the flesh." The 
Christian doctrine is, that God was manifest in Christ — 
and that thus, God was manifest in the flesh. 
26 



306 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

Now, if I understand the language of the apostle here, 
it does not change materially the sentiment of the text, 
u God was manifested in Jesus Christ," in Jesus Christ 
God made the manifestation of his nature to the world, 
as I have already shown in a former argument from the 
Hebrews. 

My brother says he has been threatened with the flood. 
I have not the slightest inclination to step out of the 
way, to play off humor on him. I resort to language of 
this kind only for fear that truth should lose ground, 
where it ought to have advanced. All that I wish to 
advance, is a flood of argument, drawn from the Bible 
of God. First, with regard to the Trinity, I assume that 
the three personalities we described in the Godhead, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were supported by numer- 
ous proof-texts, which were introduced in a former ar- 
gument. The second branch of the proposition relates to 
the equality of the Father, and the Son. 1 quoted from 
Philippians, to prove that the Father and Son are equal : 
" He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." 
Phil, ii, 6. My brother seems to think that the differ- 
ence between us is not so very great. Now I have no 
quarrel with my brother on this subject ; he may come 
as near as he feels disposed, to the position I occupy ; 
but I will not insist on his coming to it wholly, until his 
judgment and conscience may assent. But I trust his 
creed may prove no barrier to his final admission of the 
truth ; at the same time, I cannot lose sight, nor fail to 
expose, what I regard to be important errors in the 
leading doctrines of my opponent. My brother reverts to 
the fact, that the apostle's commission was not of man. 
I admitted that he did not receive it from men, but from 
Jesus Christ ; that it was not a mere human authority 
that he received ; his credentials were signed and sealed 
in heaven ; for the Saviour of the world appeared when 
he was on a persecuting tour, saying : " Saul, Saul, why 
persecutest thou me ? And he said, Who art thou, Lord ? 
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest ; 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 307 

it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, 
trembling, and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou 
have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, 
and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou 
shalt do." Acts ix, 4-6. Thus I have shown that where 
the Saviour was not honored, the Father was not hon- 
ored. So far, then, as the commission of Paul w r as con- 
cerned, it was received from Jesus Christ. 

My opponent has insisted that if the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, are three persons, they must, therefore, be 
three beings. I must direct your attention to this subject. 
I admit that the figure of water was not originally my 
own ; it was a feeble representation, and fell infinitely 
short of presenting the idea I designed to represent. He 
states that my so-called argument, was not a sufficient 
answer ; he insisted that I have not proved the person- 
ality of the Holy Ghost. I thought I did, as also his 
divine attributes. Though, perhaps, my brother may 
not see fully the force of my argument, I think others 
have seen and felt it clearly. I assumed, and proved by 
texts, that personality belonged to Jesus Christ, and 
that he was the Word which was in the beginning — the 
Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ; that his personality was 
there, and that humanity was nothing at all, so far as the 
personality was concerned ; and that it did not increase 
the number of persons ; that the humanity was associated 
with it in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence, Jesus 
Christ possessed all the infinite perfections of Jehovah — 
all power in heaven and earth. 

My brother has stated that though he possessed all 
power in heaven and earth, (and on which I founded an 
argument) that all power in heaven and earth might be 
given, and yet there was power reserved. If this be 
true, God is deprived of that power that is essential to 
exert a supreme authority over heaven and earth ; while 
this power is delegated, it limits Jehovah in conception ; 
dethrones him in heaven, and denies him power on earth. 
If this be true, I have assumed, that the moment you 



308 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

limit the perfections of Jehovah, you annihilate God, and 
leave the universe an orphan. My brother says, I have 
still been putting oft* his arguments. I have kept pace 
with him, except in one or two arguments that were 
irrelevant; I have not put off* a single argument that I 
regarded as proper to be noticed, or that had any possible 
bearing upon the subject — and indeed many others I have 
noticed that had no bearing whatever. 

He thanks his friend for this chance of discussion : my 
brother is welcome, I do not charge him one cent for all 
the advantages he may receive ; and I assure you, I 
thank my brother for the opportunity ; and I may hope, 
that the good results of this debate, both for this commu- 
nity and elsewhere, may survive me ; and when perhaps, 
in some far distant clime I may bend my steps — for 
I have had such thoughts, such might be my purpose, 
that I might not always peregrinate in this region, the 
place of my nativity, and if it should be that I drop my 
worn-out frame, and lay it down in some Western prairie 
— wherever may be my final resting-place, I shall ever 
look back upon the scenes and events of this discussion 
without any feelings of regret. I feel a consciousness in 
the power of divine truth, and I thank my brother for 
the opportunity of investigating these points of difference, 
that we may see how nearly we agree, rather than how 
widely we differ. I believe it is the duty of the religious 
world, to see how nearly they are united in the great 
fundamental principles of divine truth, instead of ascer- 
taining how far they are apart. Every man of enlarged 
and enlightened mind, and every soul imbued with the 
spirit of Christ, will not certainly fail to respond a hearty 
amen, to the expressions of my brother upon this point. 
He says, he entertains none but feelings of respect for 
me and my people. I have known many among his 
brethren, whom I regarded with high esteem, though I 
believed them in error upon some points ; yet I doubt 
not, that in heaven's high and holy place, they will 
mingle their songs of rejoicing with us for ever and ever. 



DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 309 

I remark, in conclusion, with respect to my brother's 
attempting to prove that God the Father was the Creator, 
we find that Christ, also, is represented as being the 
Creator; hence, God is Christ, and Christ is God. 

I have to say to my respected auditors, that I have no- 
thing but feelings of good-will, and sentiments of respect 
for you, which I shall retain when I shall be separated 
from you — whether, in God's Providence, I am permitted 
to mingle with you again or not. And I most heartily 
thank you, my friends, that when it was thought best 
to have an investigation of these important truths, that 
you did me the honor, to which I had not aspired, to 
call upon me to conduct this discussion ; and which 
many of my brethren might have conducted with greater 
ability. I thank my friends for the honor they have done 
me, and for the noble generosity they have manifested — 
and I might advert to the very kind and courteous man- 
ner in which I have been treated by my brother's friends. 
I have been to their tables since I have been here, and I 
intend to have the privilege of again breaking bread with 
some of them before I leave. But I still say, that my 
hope of salvation is in the existence of the three persons 
in the Trinity, possessing alike the attributes of the God- 
head, equal in substance, power, glory and eternity. 
And it is upon this ground that I trust my hopes of sal- 
vation in the merits of Jesus Christ. I thank God the 
Father; I thank God the Son; and I thank God the Holy 
Ghost, and call heaven to witness that my trust of salva- 
tion is in the boundless merit of Christ crucified ; and I 
shall hope, if my brother should pass before me from 
this world of strife and sorrow, to meet him, and greet 
him as an heir of immortality, sharing in the glory that 
is reserved for the faithful. I thank my God there is a 
crown of glory which shall be given to the faithful — and 
not to me only, but to all those who love his appearing. 
I urge this upon you as Christians, daily, honestly, weigh 
these things with yourselves and with God — and I speak 
thus to all, without regard to party. Let your Bible be 



310 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 

your rule of faith and practice — take it to your chamber, 
and upon your knees before God, seek for truth as for 
hidden treasure, and the light of his spirit will be poured 
upon an inquiring mind — the truth, as it is in Jesus, will 
shine upon you in all its glory. You that love God and 
are striving for heaven, follow on in your onward course ; 
v/hatever you do, be sure that your views are right, but 
do not be moved by every wind of doctrine — do not let go 
your hold upon the hope of Jesus Christ. In reference 
to my manner, I may say, that however tart it may have 
seemed, it was only in view of the strength of what I 
regarded as truth ; and hence, in all kindness to my bro- 
ther. In conclusion, it is my purpose to adhere to these 
gospel truths, to the latest hour of my life ; and what- 
ever may be of truth in this blessed doctrine that we do 
not now see, we shall know it all when we enter into the 
knowledge of angels. 

I thank you, gentlemen Moderators, for your kindness, 
and for the undoubted honesty, manliness, and nobleness, 
with which you have presided over our debate. And I 
would also convey my thanks to those gentlemen, for 
their faithful attention in recording our words. This is 
all I wish to say to you. I pray God's blessing upon you 
all, and may it continue to rest upon you till the end of 
life ; and may we enter heaven at last, and then may we 
shout to Him who hath washed us ! Then shall we tri- 
umph for evermore in the presence chamber of the Al- 
mighty, and share the fullness of his redeeming mercy ! 



DISCUSSION 



ON 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 



PROPOSITION POP, DISCUSSION. 

" Is the Christian Church, at all times subsequent to the Apos- 
tolic Age, prohibited from making Constitutions and Disciplines 
for her government ?" ^ 

N. Summerbell affirms ; Rev. J. M. Flood denies. 

Mb Summerbell's Twenty-first address : 

My first position on this question is, that if it is right 
to make Constitutions and Disciplines for the government 
of the Church, that it is right to make the best we can, 
which is all that can be required of us ; and that when 
we have thus done, the majority are to decide, in case of 
disagreement ; for where anything is left to a plurality 
of persons, the majority must decide what is right, and 
the majority must rule. If this be right, and I do not 
see how any man can question it, then it follows of 
necessity that it is wrong to resist ; for two opposites can 
not be right. If, then, it is right to make a Constitution, 
it is right for the majority to decide upon it, and it is 
right to execute it ; and if it be right to enforce it, then 
it is sin to resist it. The conclusion then is, that as my 
brother admits all this, he is bound to submit to the 
majority. The Catholics are in the majority, and believ- 
ing my brother's principles, have legislated for the 
Church ; and it is right for them to enforce their laws, 
and w r rong in my brother to resist them. Their laws 
have the precedence of all human legislation in the 
Church, and my brother is bound to submit to them, if 
his premises be true. 

The objection that their laws are not according to the 
Bible, and that we have the right of private judgment, 
will not avail, as the minority must always submit to the 

311 



812 DISCUSSION ON 

majority in all popular legislation ; and they think that 
their laws are according to the Bible. Private judgment 
and law can not be expected to agree. Now, we object 
to the right to legislate for God's people, and so reject 
the whole system. 

1. We think that the Bible contains the only truth 
which God has commanded us to believe : 

2. And the only law w T hich He has commanded us to 
obey ; and w r e hear not the voice of strangers. 

The Bible assures us, that to fear God and keep his 
commandments is the whole duty of man, and promises 
salvation only to those who believe his truth and obey his 
law. Those who deny that God designed this law of 
love to guide our conduct, and this truth of heaven to 
guide our faith, are certainly under obligations to tell us 
w T hat they were designed for ! But if this is admitted by 
them, then to deny its perfection, is to challenge God's wis- 
dom, and to reject his revelation ; while to doubt its suffi- 
ciency, is to impeach his goodness, and to deny his Word. 

The Bible assures us, that, Ps. xix, 7, " The law of 
the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ;" and that 

2 Tim. iii, 16, The Scriptures make the man of God 
perfect. 

Even the " Discipline" declares that " The Word of 
God is the highest authority, and only ultimate appeal in 
the church," p. 80. 

Jesus, himself assumed not to act independent of God. 

John xiv, 31, "As the Father gave me a command- 
ment, even so I do ;" but they legislate without a com- 
mandment. 

But Jesus Said, Matt, xv, 13, " Every plant which my 
heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." 

Luke ii, 49, "1 must be about my Father's business." 

John viii, 3, " I do nothing of myself, but as the 
Father hath taught me so I speak." 

John x, 37, " If I do not the works of my Father, 
believe me not." But they ordain novel faiths not com- 
manded by God, and demand that we believe them ; yea, 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 313 

they claim the right to legislate over God's kingdom, 
even to the making of Constitutions for its government. 
The Constitution of the Methodist Protestant Church, is a 
little book of no great pretensions, if we may judge from 
its size. Let us examine it, and see what it really is. 

1. It deprives colored people of their rights. 

I think that the Word of God makes no distinction 
between the white and colored man. I wish my brother 
to pay particular attention to this, for he who would 
deprive a colored man of his rights North, would enslave 
him in the South. 

2. It says that the Bible contains all things necessary 
to salvation, and that whatever is not there, is not re- 
quired to be believed. So that my brother has failed on 
the question at the very outset — his own Creed deciding 
against him. 

3. It gives the church a wrong name. It calls it the 
Methodist Protestant Church ; a name which God never 
gave it, nor Christ, nor the apostles, and it is a strange 
thing for children to name themselves. 

4. It deprives God's children of full membership, 
unless they can admit all of it to be correct; thus requir- 
ing more than God requires. P. 16. 

5. The candidate for the ministry must submit to this 
book, as well as the Bible, before he can be received into 
the ministry. P. 44. 

6. It deprives genuine converts from full communion, 
until they have been in the church six months. The 
whole three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost, 
w r ould have been deprived of full fellowship in the 
Church, by this Constitution. 

7. It gives the children of the members of their own 
Church, advantages which it withholds from the children 
of the members of other churches, who are equally good. 

8. It enjoins infant sprinkling, which is nowhere 
taught in the "Word of God, either by precept or example. 

9. It encourages three modes of baptism, which all 
know must be wrong ; for Jesus, our example, was bap- 

27 



314 DISCUSSION ON 

tized but once, and of course, in but one way, and that 
wa} r alone can be right. 

10. It orders the naming of children at their baptism ; 
a Roman Catholic custom, quite out of place, as the child 
has been named long before. 

11. It says that we are justified by faith only ; con- 
trary to the Bible, which says, that " by works a man is 
justified, and not by faith only" James ii, 24. So that, 
small as it is, its errors are many ; and how could it be 
otherwise ? The very desire for a Discipline shows a 
dissatisfaction with the Bible, and of course, a desire for 
something which is not in the Bible ; for no change 
would be required, if no alteration was desired. 

I want my brother to give a particular answer to each 
of these eleven objections, and to tell us plainly whether 
he approves or disapproves of them. Jesus says, " that 
the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, 
and they that are great exercise authority upon them, 
but it shall not be so among us. 55 Matt, xx, 25. And 
against all these attempts to lord it over God's heritage, 
and make human Constitutions, I urge the all-sufficiency 
of the Word of God, for the following reasons : 

1st. It teaches us how to fear God and keep his com- 
mandments ; which is the whole duty of man. — Ecc. xii, 
13. See also Psalm cxix. 

2d. They are to be studied by the people. " Search 
the Scriptures." — John v, 19. 

3d. It is not to be interpreted privately, as the pro- 
perty of a privileged class, but for the public. " He that 
hath ears to hear let him hear, for no prophecy of Scrip- 
ture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy came 
not in old time by the will of man : but Holy men of 
God, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." — 
2 Pet. i, 20. 

4th. It can be understood by children. "From a 
child thou hast known the Scriptures, w r hich are able to 
make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is 
in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. iii, 15. See also, fourth chap 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 315 

5th. It is a perfect system of doctrine and discipline. 
"All Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect^ 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works." — 2 Tim. iii, 
16, 17. 

6th. The human Disciplines are not so. "In vain do 
ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
of men." — Mark vii, 7, 13. 

7th. Traditions lead to transgression. "Why do ye 
transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ? 
Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect 
by your tradition." — Matt, xv, 3, 6. 

8th. The design of the Gospels proves their suffi- 
ciency. " These are written that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing 
ye might have life through his name." — John xx, 31. 

9th. Those w 7 ho will not hear the Scriptures are hope- 
less. "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, nei- 
ther will they be persuaded though one rose from the 
dead." — Luke xvi, 31. 

10th. The most plausible objection against the Bible, 
as an all-sufficient rule, is that proposed by the Jesuits 
and reiterated by ignorant Protestants, viz : "Is the Bible 
the rule as it lies on the shelf? the Bible as you peruse 
it ? or, is your opinion of the Bible the rule ? " To w T hich 
the reply is sufficient, Is your creed or traditions the rule 
as they lie on the shelf? or as you peruse them? or is 
your opinion of them your rule ? Every objection urged 
against the Bible applies with fourfold force against all 
other rules. 

11th. No man is capable of making rules for that 
which he does not understand ; hence, human rules are 
necessarily imperfect, originating, as they do, with those 
who acknowledge religion to be a mystery, and who do 
not understand our nature. God, alone, understands our 
nature and its wants, and the correct principles of its 
government. 



316 DISCUSSION ON 

12th. Other rules are proved to be imperfect, not only 
by their diversity, but by their entire failure either to 
unite the church, or to keep it pure. 

13th. There is no advance in the Creed, it is the stereo- 
typed error of an ignorant and barbarous age. To see 
it we look back, and they are chained back who embrace 
it ; and such, not only cause, but continue divisions in 
the church of Christ. 

14th. To be reconciled to God — the sum of religion 
is to be reconciled to God's law — God's will ; that is to 
be reconciled to the Bible. This leads to reconciliation 
with all the children of God. But the adoption of a 
human Creed, while it reconciles us to a party, separates 
us from our fellow Christians, and can never assure us of 
reconciliation to God — since we are not assured that the 
Creed itself is approved by God. It seems to me, that 
while we only see in part, and know in part, we should 
desire to be guided wholly by the divine rule, instead of 
impeaching its perfection, and substituting other laws. 
Bible laws are unappreciated, simply because they are 
unstudied ; and unstudied, because the people are taught 
that they are not a sufficient rule for the Church. 

15th. That there may be true religion without human 
forms, an evangelical faith without human Creeds, and a 
true Church without sectarianism, is just as true, as that 
the true Church existed prior to these forms, creeds, and 
sects. 

16th. The Christians hold it as a fundamental prin- 
ciple of our most holy religion, that we receive the Bible 
as our rule of faith and practice, to the exclusion of all 
other authoritative rules ; but in this we professs not to 
have been actuated by singular motives, but rather to 
have embraced the principles ever advocated by the 
wisest and best men, whose virtues have adorned the 
Christian religion. Turn to which of the great expounders 
of our faith we will, and we find them ever defending 
this cardinal principle. 

I lay my hand on the "Scripture Manual" published 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 317 

and commended by the brightest constellation of Ameri- 
can ministers, and I read that — 

" The only God-given rule of faith and practice is the 
Bible." 

I take up the "Westminster Assembles Confession 
of Faith" and I read there, that — 

" The Bible contains the whole counsel of God, con- 
cerning all things necessary for his own glory, or man's 
salvation, faith and life." 

If I turn to the most popular hymn books, I still read: 

"Men's books with heaps of chaff are stored, 
God's book, the golden grains afford." 

Dr. Lyman Beecher, one of America's most honored 
ministers, says : 

" It is too late in the day to force Creeds down men's 
throats ! We must rely upon Biblical interpretation." 

I open "Buttertvorth's Concordance, improved by 
Dr. Adam Clarke" and find, " There is nothing rela- 
tive to the actions, words, or thoughts of men, nor any- 
thing respecting our duty to God or men, but what is 
included or inculcated in the sacred Oracles." The 
Bible, it calls, " The Christian's storehouse of all sup- 
plies ; his museum of the greatest rarities and curiosities ; 
his sanctuary and hiding-place ; his glass, through which 
are seen all objects, both of time and eterenity — and in 
which the sinner may ever see reflected, the moral image 
of the soul." 

The honored Richard Baxter says, " The rule that all 
must agree in, must be one that is above all. Never 
will the Church have full unity, till the SCRIPTURE 
SUFFICIENCY be more generally acknowledged. You 
complain of many opinions, and ways ; and many you 
will still have, till the ONE RULE— the Scriptures— be 
the standard of our religion. Two things have set the 
Church on fire, and been the plagues of it above one- 
thousand years. First; Enlarging our creed, and making 
more fundamentals than God ever made ; and Second, 



318 DISCUSSION ON 

Composing, and so imposing our creeds and confessions, 
in our own words and phrases." 

Milton, the immortal poet, says, " For my part, I ad- 
here to the Holy Scriptures alone." 

Wadington, beloved of all, says, "The first Christians 
had no written creed — they expressed their belief in the 
language of Scripture — therefore, their variations were 
without schism, and their differences without acrimony." 

M. D^Auhigne says, " The all-sufficiency of the Word 
is clearly established" — " if, therefore, any offer you as a 
rule, traditions, either of the earlier ages, or of the 
Reformation, reject them." " Endure, I implore you, my 
reiterated entreaties in regard to it." 

Mr. Flood's Twenty-first reply : 

I had hoped, that my brother would have confined 
himself to the proposition, that the making of a Consti- 
tution and Discipline for the government of the Church, 
is contrary to the Word of God, or is positively prohib- 
ited. The first thing to which he directs your attention, 
is, the work containing the Constitution and Discipline 
of the Methodist Protestant Church, which, he says, is a 
little book of no consequence. I hold the little book in 
my hand. In Art. VII, it is said, " Neither the General 
Conference, nor any Annual Conference, shall assume 
power, to authorize or sanction any thing inconsistent 
with the morality of the Holy Scriptures." 

This is the principle which I defend. The Church has 
a right to form and enforce rules, only so far as they are 
in accordance with the Word of God. The rule that 
relates to the expulsion of members, and all Church 
trj^ls, it is stated, should be conducted on Gospel prin- 
ciples only. My brother then quotes several passages of 
Scripture, to show that the Bible is an all-sufficient rule 
of faith and practice. "All Scripture is given by inspi- 
ration of God," &c. " If any man teach otherwise, and 
consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is accord- 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 319 

ing to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but 
doting about questions and strifes of words." 1 Tim. vi, 
3. My brother displayed the fruits of his knowledge by 
turning round, and charging his opponent that he was 
thus proud, and referred to a passage in the Psalms, try- 
ing to make the impression upon the minds of his breth- 
ren, that he was one of those proud boasters. What 
that has to do with the right of the Church to make a 
Constitution, I am not able to say. 

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," &c. 
What application this has to Church government, I am 
not able to say. My brother is entitled to great credit 
for theological research. I imagined that we met for the 
purpose of discussing the right to make a Constitution, 
&c. He says, all Scripture is profitable ; we agree — for 
instruction, we agree. But this is all addressed to the 
man of God, not to the Church. The Church, signifies a 
body met together to transact business, whether religious 
or not ; it is applicable to any civil body. (You may 
shake your head). Lawful or unlawful, the term, in its 
original meaning, was thus used ; but, by common con- 
sent, it applies to the church universal — or, in two senses, 
embraces the Church militant and the Church triumph- 
ant. Drs. Benson, Clarke, Watson, Buck, and all other 
authors that have treated upon this subject, give the 
same opinion. My opponent then proceeds to examine 
this little book, and speaks of it in a most contemptuous 
manner — holds it up to the public, and says, I have 
denied portions of it. I desire my audience to notice 
the intentions of my brother to dodge the question. We 
have a little more latitude than on the solemn subjects 
we treated of before, and I warn him that I shall take 
off my gloves. He says, the colored people are denied 
their rights. 

The Article says that all white male members, in full 
communion and fellowship, of twenty-one years of age, 
shall be entitled to vote. This rule arose from the fact, 
of the existence of slavery in the southern states, where 



320 DISCUSSION ON 

it was known that a slave might be influenced by the 
master. There are some little things in the Discipline that 
I object to, and I agitated this matter at the late General 
Conference. We have a rule against stationing ministers, 
except for a limited time, and some of us thought that it 
might be improved. But this does not produce an alien- 
ation of my affections from the Methodist Protestant 
Church. I never expect to find any body of men agree- 
ing with me in every particular. But my brother puts 
words into my mouth, and then draws his own conclu- 
sions. He goes on from talking about the Methodist 
Protestant Church, to talking about infant baptism; and 
if he supposes I am going to chase him all over the 
world, he is quite mistaken. He reminded me, in this 
performance, of the sailor, who had been accustomed to a 
seafaring life, but concluded to change it for the farming 
business. The farmer who hired him, took him to a fal- 
low field, to give him some lessons in plowing: " Which 
way shall I go?" asked the sailor. "Just go toward 
that red heifer," said the farmer, pointing, as he spoke, 
to a heifer just across the field. He started, and the far- 
mer supposed it would be all right. An hour or two 
afterward, when he returned to see how his new man 
was getting along, he found the field covered over with 
marks in every possible direction, and on the farmer in- 
quiring what he had been doing, " I am following the 
red heifer," said he. I do not intend to follow the red 
heifer ; not that I compare my brother to one. 

He feels like the Irishman, who, with a companion, 
saw a lot of horses in the field : " I suppose," said Pat, 
" we are as much entitled to ride, as to walk, in this free 
country;" so one took an old horse, and the other a 
young one. They had never been on horses before. The 
young horse began to kick up, and try to throw his 
rider ; poor Pat was frightened, and screamed, " Help 
and murder," holding on to the animal's mane with all 
his might: " Why don't you get off?" shouts out his 
companion to him. " I can hardly stick on, so how shall 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 321 

I get off?" replied he. So with my friend, he can hardly 
stick on, so how shall he get off? He comes hereto 
prove that we have no right to make a Constitution and 
Discipline for the Church. He quoted the apostle, where 
he speaks of philosophy and vain deceit, and says that 
his opponent would attempt to exercise this influence 
over him ; so that I am charged with hypocrisy and vain 
deceit ; and yet, he hoped in his prayer, that no word 
would be uttered that would not be in accordance with 
the dignity and position of Christian ministers. With 
respect to the passage he quoted from Peter: "The 
Scriptures are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation," 
&c, there is no church in the land that teaches anything 
else. My brother says that to them the Bible is the only 
and all-sufficient rule of faith, and practice. I have before 
me that which seems to be evidence to the contrary. 

Mr. Flood begins to read from the Minutes of the 
Deer Creek Christian Conference : ct That a committee 

of three be appointed to examine the standing of ," 

&c, &c. 

Mk. Summerbell. — I object to his reading that which 
impeaches the character of any person. 

Mr. Flood. — I will not be interrupted in this way. I 
insist upon my brother taking his seat. 

Mr. Summerbell. — I appeal to the Moderators. 

Mr. Flood. — I want to show you how you do busi- 
ness. That you have a Discipline, and what it is. It 
is my intention to lift the sheep-skin. 

Mr. Caleb Thomas — (Clerk of the Deer Creek Con- 
ference), claims the " Minutes." 

J. M. Flood. — Oh ! if you are ashamed of your "Dis- 
cipline," take it away. I want the congregation to dis- 
tinctly notice, that I borrowed this book for . 

The Moderators. — We wish the speaker to under- 
stand that this matter is under consideration. 

J. M. Flood. — I borrowed this book, and that man 
comes, and because his " Discipline " is about to be 
exposed, takes it forcibly from me. 



822 DISCUSSION ON 

Mr. Caleb Thomas. — I wish to explain that Mr. Flood 
called on me, saying he understood I had the Records of 
our annual Conference ; he said he wanted to examine 
them. I told him he could have them, not thinking in 
the least, that he would bring it up here for public 
examination. No doubt, they have examined as many 
men's characters, as we have. This is the reason I 
object to this book being read. 

J. M. Flood. — You see their Discipline is in a cor- 
ner ; ours is open for the world. I have not said a word 
about a man's character. 

Mr. Summerbell. — Yes, you have. 

Moderators. — The decision of the Moderators is, that 
the speaker has a right to the Records, and to all histori- 
cal facts connected with the subject under discussion, 
but not so as to reflect upon the character of any person. 
The names of all individuals must be left blank. 

Mr. Flood. — I w r ill not be hampered. 

Stranger. — Call it Mr. A. or Mr. B. 

Moderators. — Our decision is, that the names of per- 
sons whose character is involved, shall be left blank. 

Mr. Flood reads : " Resolved, that each Church has 
the right and power to settle all difficulties. 

"Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to 
wait on A. and B., in order to effect an adjustment of the 
difficulties existing between them, and see the measures 
of our last session of Conference, that they be carried out 
by those who engaged to comply with the report of the 
committee of that Conference, and that A., B. and C, 
compose said committee. Here is a declaration as to 
the power which each Church has, according to their 
4 Discipline.' I want chapter and verse, to prove that % 
their Church has a right to settle difficulties, by a com- 
mittee or assembly of the Church. If he cannot give it, 
he has a Discipline outside their professions. 

u Met in annual session at Williamsport, Pickaway 
county, O., Aug. 14, A. D. 1851, at 10 o'clock A. M. 
Called to order by Clerk ; prayer by . 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 323 

"A Committee was then appointed to nominate a Pre- 
sident to preside over our deliberations. Committee con- 
sisting of A., B. and C. We, your committee, beg leave 
to report the name of . 

"Resolved, That be our Chairman, during the 

present session of this Conference. 

"A resolution was then offered, and received, that 
the candidates for ordination be examined, by a commit- 
tee appointed by the chair, bearing upon their sentiments 
of doctrine that may be cardinal ; and the chair appointed 
A., B. and C, said committee. 

"Resolved, That the request of for a letter, be 

laid over until the next annual Conference. " 

I should like chapter and verse for all this. We have 
similar Rules and Discipline, but ours is printed and 
open to the world ; but they profess they have none but 
the Bible. 

I will read from the Gospel Herald, the organ of their 
Church. It bears date July 13. 

11 Minutes of the Northern Illinois and Wisconsin Christian Con- 
ference, held at Bonas Prairie, Boone Co., Illinois, 
"According to previous notice, a part of the ministers, 
and some of the delegates, met on Friclav, the 16th of 
June, 1854, to form a Pastoral Association; and alter 
much discussion, and the objects of the society fairly 
presented, the association was organized. Saturday and 
Sunday were devoted to religious exercises — preaching 
and social worship. Monday, 19th, met in Annual Ses- 
sion ; J. Walworth was elected President, and J. L. 
Towner, Secretary. Prayer by A. L. Conant. Then pro- 
ceeded to the appointment of committees. Afterward, 
to the examination of churches. 

"Resolved, That J. L. Towner deliver an address before 
the next Conference, and that J. Walworth be his alter- 
nate. That J. L. Towner, and S. Parsons, be our dele- 
gates to the Iowa Christian Conference, and that Eli 
Linscott, and David Rice, to the Northern Indiana and 
Southern Michigan Christian Conference. That Wm. 



324 DISCUSSION ON 

Bradley, J. Walworth, J. L. Towner, and S. S. Kimball 
be our delegates to the United States Convention in 
October next. That collections be taken up in the several 
congregations to assist the delegates in paying the ex- 
pense of the journey to Cincinnati, and the amount for- 
warded to the clerk as soon as September next. 

"The next general Convention of the Christian denom- 
ination will meet in the Christian Church in Cincinnati, 
Ohio, on the first Wednesday, October the 4th, 1854, at 
10 o'clock, A. M." 

I want to know their authority for all this. If it is in 
the Bible, as they profess, let us have the chapter and 
verse. If the brother can not prove his authority for all this, 
from the Bible, I want him to have the honesty to say so. 
I, too, hold that the Bible is the highest law, and that no 
Church has a right to make any law that interferes with 
the law of God. My brother has wandered off the track 
he was on before. u Call no man master," said he ; this 
is the language of Christ ; there is no absolute superiority 
in the Church ; no natural right for any one to lord it over 
God's heritage. One is your master, even Christ, and 
all ye are brethren. Making Constitutions and Disci- 
plines, he says, causes divisions, and is therefore anti- 
Christian; but what is it makes these divisions? These 
Creeds and Constitutions do, says he, "and no one else 
in the world could receive ours." He says, w T e ought 
to give up ours, as well as our distinctive name. We 
prefer to be called by the name by w T hich we are com- 
monly designated. We might be called " Christians," 
but has not almost every form of skepticism been propa- 
gated in the name of Christ? My brother now gets 
back to the subject of the human and divine nature, and 
says this doctrine can not be proved. Has the Church 
of Christ, since the clays of Christ, a right to make Rules 
and Discipline for her government; therefore, because 
she has not the right, therefore Jesus Christ is not both. 
God and man ; and if he be, it should not be made a 
subject of legislation in the Church whether it should be 
believed or not. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 325 

He refers to the fact, that for the origin of these Creeds 
we have to look back to the dark ages, back to Wesley 
and others. According to my friend, Wesley should 
have been a school-boy to him, then he would have 
learned that the making of Creeds and Constitutions was 
out of place. 

Mr. Summerbell's Twenty-second address : 

Although Mr. Wesley was linked in with the Creed 
believers, yet he very much disapproved of Creeds, and 
under other circumstances, no doubt, would have aban- 
doned them. Allowances are to be made for circum- 
stances ; but when the evil of a thing is plainly seen, it 
should be abandoned. My brother has not yet harmo- 
nized the contradictions in his Discipline, which says that 
the Word of God is the only rule of faith and conduct. 
Now if this be true, then his Constitution is no rule at 
all. My brother now talks of taking off his gloves and 
coming at me in earnest. I am sorry that he is so very 
angry. I do hope that he will try to be gentle, or I may 
get frightened ; for I am not very courageous ; however, 
I do not feel alarmed yet, and am in hopes that I shall 
live till night. But he threatens tremendously, and it 
will be proof of indomitable courage in me if I do. 
Still he has attempted to frighten me so often that I am 
becoming used to it, and like the cry of " wolf! wolf !" 
I cease to be concerned at his cry. His human thunder 
lacks the lightning which makes it terrific, and it has 
now been sounding in my ears so many da} r s, that it 
has ceased to be alarming ; still he had better beware, 
for he might frighten me, and that would be very bad. 
He quotes the Minutes of the Deer Creek Conference^ 
as though that book were our Constitution, Discipline, 
or Creed ; but that is merely the records of that body, 
showing their modus operandi in executing our divine 
Constitution — the record of the deeds of that Conference. 
And though I rejected all that book, and all their acts, 
yet I might be a member of the Christian church all 



326 DISCUSSION ON 

my life — for their acts are only of local authority, and their 
doings have never been either examined or sanctioned by 
the Church at large. No such book is any test of fellow- 
ship with us. He says that he acknowledges nothing in 
his Discipline, only as it agrees with God's book. If so, 
why not accept the Bible just as God gives it to us ? If 
nothing is right but the Bible, then why not take the 
Bible ? But it is not so. There is much there that the 
Bible approves not. It is the Constitution of their Church ; 
take it away, and they w T ould cease to be a Methodist 
Protestant Church. 

He can not see w T hy I should quote the text that the 
Bible "is profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction in 
righteousness, and able to make the man of God perfect — 
wise unto salvation, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works." But my brother is not wise, and can not see 
afar off. What more is needed than to have a book of 
doctrine, reproof and instruction, able to make us per- 
fect — thoroughly furnished to all good works, unless we 
desire to avoid this doctrine and reproof, and to be fur- 
nished to bad works ? He says, that the Church is a secu- 
lar assembly. The word Church is an English modifica- 
tion of Kvpuxxos, which signifies the Lord's, as the Lord's 
house, the Lord's day, or the Lords people, and has no 
connection with ExxT^oia, which occurs so frequently in 
the New Testament, and signifies an assembly, secular 
or otherwise. He has not yet proved the right of his 
Church to make a difference between the rights of white 
and colored people. If it was made for the South, is 
God's law different South from what it is North ? Why 
then, not alter it for the North ? But if he objects to the 
Constitution, why does he not leave the church? He 
objects to my noticing infant baptism ; but every thing in 
his Constitution is now open for discussion. He attempts 
to enliven his side by anecdotes not at all apropos. The 
story of the red heifer is only applicable to himself, who 
thus follows up, in its crooked windings, his changeable 
Creed : and not at all to us, who follow the unchangeable 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 327 

law of God's "Word. And himself, too, is the Paddy, 
who could not get off his pony, because he could not 
stick on : for he is thus with his Creed — his reason for 
not abandoning it is, that he does not regard it as obliga- 
tory. But such anecdotes are unworthy of this place — • 
they have been told and laughed over, perhaps, in every 
rum-hole in the country. Had he given us one passage 
of Scripture instead of these stories, so unbecoming 
the house of God, it might have done his cause some 
service. But that is just what is lacking. There are 
plenty of texts, but none authorizing Methodist ministers 
to make Constitutions for the government of God's peo- 
ple. Hence his great effort is on stories ; but do such 
anecdotes prove that the Church has a right to legislate 
for the Church, and make Constitutions and tests of faith ? 
The Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, 
can ever promote a true Christian Church ; all other rules 
of necessity create sectarian churches. 

John Locke, the great Christian philosopher, says of 
the Bible, " It is all pure, all sincere ; nothing too much, 
nothing wanting. How that can be called the Church 
of Christ, which is established upon laws which are not 
his, and which excludes such persons from its communion 
as he will one day receive into the kingdom of heaven, 
I understand not" 

Dr. Adam Clarke says, "The sacred writings, and 
they alone, contain what is necessary for faith and prac- 
tice ; and that no man, number of men, society, church, 
council, presbytery, consistory, or conclave, has dominion 
over any man's faith. The Word of God alone, is his 
rule." 

The excellent Robert Hall says, that the " Bible as 
(is) the great and only standard of Christian faith and 
practice." And when Wesley, truly a great reformer, 
astonished the churches by the assertion, that men should 
live holy lives, he was styled, " homo unius libri" " a 
man of one book ;" for he and his young companions 
united upon this Book of heaven. They w r ere, one and 



328 DISCUSSION ON 

all, determined to be " Bible Christians." Hence the re- 
proachful epithets of "Bible moths" and "Bible bigots" 
were applied to them by their enemies. No doubt but 
the peculiar feature of Mr. Wesley's piety was as much 
owing to his regard for the teachings of this great Book, 
as the declensions and dissensions among his followers 
are owing to a departure from it. 

At the present time nearly all the Baptist churches 
in the United States, with many of other denominations, 
have cast off all other rules. One of the best discourses 
against human Creeds, is that published by Charles 
Beecher, at the dedication of the Second Presbyterian 
church, at Fort Wayne, Ind., Feb. 22, 1846, on the text, 
" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
struction in righteousness, that the man of God may 
be perfect — thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 
2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. The learned divine therein maintains, 
that,— 

First: "The Bible is a Creed, sufficient, under God's 
blessing, to regulate the belief, experience, and practice, 
of the whole Christian world." 

Second: The substitution of any other Creed, for either 
of these purposes, is one step in apostasy. And ably 
does the noble writer argue, and triumphantly does he 
sustain his bold positions. 

The noble Buss, plead for the Bible alone ; Wickliff 
looked for unadulterated truth to no other book. 

John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrim's Progress, 
belonged to a truly Christian Church. The Bible was 
the only Creed of that Church, and Christian character 
the only test of fellowship. Though Bunyan himself 
was baptized, yet immersion was not made a test, by 
either him or the Church, and Christian is the only name 
assumed by this great religious luminary. 

The Bible — the Bible ! lias ever been the appeal of 
the persecuted. "When Mr. Carson was expelled from 
his church, in Ireland, by the soldiers, he took the Holy 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 329 

Bible in Ms arms, saying, let all who follow the Bible 
come with me, and the congregation left the house. In 
short, the most able and praiseworthy positions ever as- 
sumed by the ministers of Christ — Luther, Chillingworth, 
Wesley, or others, have been taken upon " The Bible, 
and the Bible alone." This is the lever which moved 
the hosts of the Reformation. With this truth, the Re- 
former has ever found himself doubly armed. He has 
found the Bible to be, at once, both " sword and shield. 5 ' 
And the only fault of the Christians, if fault it be, is in 
carrying out in practice, what an enlightened Church 
has ever taught in theory. 

True, many say that we are wrong in this, but we 
crave your indulgent consideration of the establishment 
of the Church by our great Immanuel ; consider its history 
under the inspired apostles; consider its trials in the 
early ages ; consider the united testimony of its holy 
martyrs ; all these appeal to the Bible — the Bible alone ! 
If they were sincere, then we are approved ; if they were 
correct, then we can not be wrong ; if they were wrong, 
then those who sustain Creeds may be right : and Creeds 
may be an improvement upon the system of our blessed 
Saviour and his apostles. 

The word of God commends itself to us as an only 
rule of faith and practice, if we consider, that since the 
world began, it has been the only rule, or guide, ever 
commended to our religious observance by divine au- 
thority. Neither the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit; 
neither angel, prophet, or apostle, has ever either pointed 
us to any other, or failed to warn us against all others. 
God ever assures us that he requires us to walk by no 
other rules, and to obey no other laws, than those of his 
Word, in order to render unto him acceptable worship, 
and secure eternal life. 

It is written, " In vain do ye worship me, teaching for 
doctrines the commandments of men." — Mark vii, 7. 

Said Jesus, " Ye make void the law of God through 
your traditions." — Mark vii, 13. 
28 



330 DISCUSSION ON 

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command- 
ments." — Luke x, 19. 

" They have Moses and the prophets, if they hear 
not them, neither would they be persuaded though one 
should arise from the dead." — Luke xvi, 31. 

" Search the Scriptures" — " the Scriptures can not be 
broken." — Ibid. 

Said the wise man, "Fear God, and keep his command- 
ments, for this is the whole duty of man." — Ec. xii, 13. 

Said the siveet singer of Israel: "The law of the 
Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of 
the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes 
of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The com- 
mandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever. The 
judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous all to- 
gether." — Ps. xix, 7-9. 

" Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? by 
taking heed thereto, according to thy word." — Ps. cxix, 9. 

" Thou, through thy commandments, hast made me 
wiser than mine enemies. I understand more than the 
ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained 
my feet from every evil way, that 1 might keep thy word. 
Through thy precepts I get understanding ; therefore I 
hate every false way." — Ps. cxix, 98-101. 

" By thy commandments is thy servant warned ; and 
in keeping them there is great reward." God said to 
Abraham, " Ye shall lay up these my words in your 
heart, and in your soul ; and ye shall teach them to 
your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thy 
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when 
thou liest down, and when thou risest up." — Deut. xi, 18. 

To Isaiah, "To this man will I look, even to him that 
is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my 
word." — Isa. xlvi, 2. The wise man says, "Add not 
unto his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found 
a liar." — Prov. xxx, 6. And John says, " If any man 
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
plagues that are written in this book. If any man shall 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 331 

take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, 
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and 
out of the holy city, and from the things which are writ- 
ten in this book." — Kev. xxii, 18, 19. 

The inspired apostles say, " All Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; 
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished to all good works." — 1 Tim. ii, 16. 

" Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and 
continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a 
doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." 
James i, 25. 

And the prophet says, "To the law and to the testi- 
mony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is 
because there is no light in them." — Isaiah viii, 20. 

The promise is, " As many as walk according to this 
rule, peace be on them." — Gal. vi, 16. 

And the warning, " Though we, or an angel from 
heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we 
have preached, let him be accursed." — Gal. i, 8. 

In short, all the promises of the Bible are predicated 
upon our obeying the Bible. It is, " Blessed are they 
that do his commandments." Such are the blessings 
and promises connected with God's Word. Neither is 
there any blessing pronounced or promise given, for 
believing in, or walking by, any other rule whatever ; but 
we are ever taught that this, and this alone, is able to 
make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus. 

Again the Scriptures commend themselves to us, as an 
all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, when w T e reflect 
that the apostolic Church, and indeed the primitive 
Church, for the first three centuries, had no other. Had 
any other been necessary, the apostles would doubtless 
have provided it ; yea, the prophetic eye of Jesus, that 
pierced the vista of future ages, and saw the pathway of 
his Church through all coming years, would have pro- 
vided a Creed ere he said, it is finished. 



332 DISCUSSION ON 

Who does not long for the return of those times, of 
creedless purity and apostolic faith, when the astonished 
heathen exclaimed: " See how these Christians love one 
another*." 

Mr. Flood's Twenty-second reply : 

My brother complains that I do not quote Scripture. 
It is his business to quote Scripture, and prove his posi- 
tion. Of all the speeches I ever listened to, his last is the 
most peculiar ! I refer him to Job xxxvi, 10. " He open- 
eth their ear to Discipline." I quote one passage merely 
for my brother to give attention to, before I proceed to 
review his position. What he has proved, to show that 
the Church has no right to make Discipline, you will dis- 
cover as we proceed. He sets out by saying that he has 
heard the cry of "wolf," " wolf!" He does not say he 
sees the animal, but I propose to lift the sheepskin, and 
then he will have a sight. 

My brother quotes, " teaching for doctrine the com- 
mandments of men." Who has taught for doctrine the 
commandments of men ? Has he found it in any Disci- 
pline in the world ? We are talking about government, 
not doctrine. My opponent is here to prove, that the 
Church has no right to govern herself. And then he 
says, we teach for doctrine the commandments of men, 
because we make Discipline. 

He is now become very pious, and very loving, although 
in his first speech he called me a hypocrite, and said, "he 
will be up here trying to deceive you." Who is a 
deceiver, but the man who intends to enforce falsehood 
upon the people '? Now, my brother wants to be very 
loving. This blow of hot and cold breath, by a minister 
of Jesus Christ, is very bad. Who is it that has betrayed 
bad feeling ? Who is it that has made personal attacks ? 
First I w r as charged, most pointedly, with ignorance ; I 
could not see far because of ignorance and blindness, but 
now my opponent wishes to be very loving. If I am 
that ignoramus, and if I am that man disposed to deceive, 
treat me accordingly, as would an honest man. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 333 

He insists upon taking the name that God gives. I 
learn that the followers of Christ were first called Chris- 
tians at Antioch ; but the Christians had an organization 
before they met at Antioch ; they were called Nazarenes. 
This brother is very anxious that I should not threaten 
him, and scare him ; he intimates that he may become 
alarmed. He says, I have been boasting ; but I leave it 
to the audience to decide, who has indulged in the 
greatest amount of braggadocia. Then he kindly advises 
me not to desecrate the pulpit. I thought an anecdote 
was appropriate to the pulpit, as an equivalent for his 
attack in calling a friend a hypocrite ; leaving the pulpit, 
as he did, under such strong expressions of love, and then 
venting such expressions of spite. 

Referring to this hook, he says our Connection does not 
receive it. He quotes Locke, (?) to show that a Church 
not founded upon the lav/ of God, can not stand. 'He 
quotes Clarke, to the same effect : very excellent ! It is 
the very position assumed by the Methodist Protestant 
Discipline. What Church in Christendom, does not 
make Jesus and his Word the foundation upon which 
they build ? 

Beecher is quoted on faith, experience, and practice. 
The Bible is enough for faith, that is true ; it is sufficient 
of itself for faith, experience, and practice, but in the 
organization of a visible Church, it is utterly impossible 
that it could exist, without some rules of order drawn up 
independently of the plain letter of the Word of God. I 
want my brother to understand, that wherever a Church 
of theirs is organized, they have their books to record the 
names of membership and the transactions of the Church, 
and have a clerk to do that work. Do not be going about 
the country, to make people believe that Methodists have 
left the Bible. Our Discipline has been held up to scorn 
in this place, and ridiculed as a little book unworthy of 
notice ; and at the same time, they are afraid to let their 
own books be seen, and bear them off after they have 
been once lent, because that it is not to be seen what was 



334 DISCUSSION ON 

their mode of transacting business. [Reads.] " Their 
Annual Conference met at Williams county, Ohio, Aug. 
15, 1851, and were called to order by the election of a 
Clerk." I want to know what chapter and verse will 
give authority for this. 

My opponent unchristianizes others when they make a 
Discipline ; I fear it is not in him to have the honesty to 
acknowledge that he falls into the same snare. (?) My 
brother wishes me to preserve my temper. Have I 
called him ignorant ? Have I intimated that he was a 
deceiver ? These words are brother Summerbell's, and 
not mine. O ! consistency is a jewel ! He introduces 
the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into this 
argument, and goes on to mention the Trinity, for he 
could not keep it out ; he goes out of his way and drags 
in the Trinity, and speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. What has that to do with this question ? He 
says, we should receive the Word of God as true. Who 
has ever questioned this ? The Word of God is able to 
make us wise unto salvation ; but what has this to do 
with the right of the Church to make Discipline ? He 
says, " Ye make void the law of God, by your traditions." 
Whatever makes void the law of God, is not Discipline. 
We are not governed by traditions ; our Book of Disci- 
pline is open to the public. Every Methodist preacher 
is a peddler, so to speak, of his Discipline, and to sell it 
to any one who wants it, for a very small price ; and 
yet he urges us, whatever we do, to abandon this Disci- 
pline, and come to the Word of God, as though we had 
to abandon our Discipline to come to the Word of God. 

I will read Mosheim, Yol. i, 37. " Neither Christ 
himself, nor his holy apostles, have commanded anything 
clearly or expressly, concerning the external form of the 
Church, or the precise method according to which it 
should be governed. Those who imagine that Christ 
himself, or the apostles by his direction or authority, ap- 
pointed a certain fixed form of Church government, have 
not determined what that form was. Hence, we may 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 335 

infer, that the regulation of this was, in some measure, 
to be accommodated to the time, and left to the wisdom 
and prudence of the chief rulers, both of the state and 
of the Church. If, however, it be true, that the apostles 
acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the 
commands of their blessed Master, (and this no Christian 
can call in question) it follows, that the form of govern- 
ment which the primitive Church borrowed from that of 
Jerusalem, the first Christian assembly established by 
the apostles themselves, must be esteemed of divine 
institution. But from this, it would be wrong to con- 
clude that such a form is immutable, and ought to be 
invariably observed ; for this, a great variety of events 
may render impossible. In those early times, every 
Christian Church consisted of the people, their leaders 
and the ministers or deacons, and these indeed belong to 
every religious society. The people were, undoubtedly, 
the. first in authority ; for the apostles showed by their 
own example, that nothing of moment was to be carried 
on, or determined, without the consent of the Assembly ; 
and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and 
necessary in those critical times. It was, therefore, the 
assembly of the people which chose rulers and teachers, or 
received them by a free and authoritative consent when 
recommended by others. The same people rejected or 
confirmed by their suffrages, the laws that were proposed 
by their rulers to the Assembly ; excommunicated profli- 
gate and unworthy members of the Church ; restored the 
penitent to their forfeited privileges ; passed judgment 
upon the different subjects of controversy and dissension 
that arose in their community ; examined and decided 
the disputes which happened between the elders and 
deacons; and in a word, exercised all that authority 
which belongs to such as are invested with sovereign 
power. The people had, in some measure, purchased 
these privileges, by administering to the support of their 
rulers, ministers, and poor, and by offering large and 
generous contributions, when the safety or interest of the 



336 DISCUSSION ON 

community rendered them necessary. In these supplies, 
each bore a part proportioned to his circumstances ; and 
the various gifts which were then brought into the public 
assemblies, were called oblations. 

Such was the Constitution of the Christian Church in 
its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous 
nor splendid. Three or four presbyters, men of remark- 
able piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations 
in perfect harmony, nor did they stand in need of any 
president or superior to maintain concord and order, 
where no dissensions were known. 

It is in strict accordance with this testimony, that the 
Discipline of the Church was not settled by Jesus or his 
followers. No one insists that necessarily, all the Churches 
shall have the same rule ; but then there is no propriety 
when he has a rule, in holding up the Bible and saying, 
this is the only Discipline, w T hen I have brought from a 
corner, you?' Discipline. He tries to refute it by saying, 
that all Christians do not receive it. When our Disci- 
pline is held up, just remind them of that other, of which 
they are so ashamed. If you have a Discipline in a 
corner, bring it out, my brother, and don't tell the people 
we have no other. I will again refer to Mosheim, Vol. i, 
p. 39. "But the number of presbyters and deacons in- 
creasing with that of the Churches, and the sacred work 
of the ministry growing more painful and weighty, by a 
number of additional duties, these new circumstances 
required new regulations. It was then judged necessary, 
that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom, 
should preside in the council of presbyters, in order to 
distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and 
to be a center of union to the whole society." 

Our friends have advanced on these Christians. I 
have not opposed the right of Churches to elect a presi- 
dent, &c; but in subsequent times, the Church thought 
it should select number one, and call him President. 
My brother stands here as our accuser, for doing the very 
same thing they do themselves. I have before me 3 the 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 337 

proof of an election of president by their own body. See 
Minutes of Nineteenth Annual Session of the Christian 
Conference. Here is a man elected President ; I want 
the chapter and verse for it. I attended the first Con- 
ference ever held in this part of the country. The first 
question proposed was, " Are Conferences Scriptural?" 
It was discussed warmly, interestingly, for some length 
of time, but all thought it better for the matter to be 
settled among themselves. It was finally decided by a 
majority, that it was a Scriptural proceeding; and then 
were elected President, Secretary, and Committees, and 
all thought it was in accordance with the Scriptures. I 
do not say that the proceedings of the Christians were 
unscriptural ; but I do say, that the Scriptures enjoin us 
to deal with others as we would have others deal with us. 
Now here is the Church Discipline, election of president, 
xfec, and I want all the rules and regulations of their 
government, and I w r ant chapter and verse for all this. 
The only difference between our Discipline and theirs is, 
that ours is printed, theirs is not ; ours is printed, theirs 
is to be found in scraps, scattered all over the land. 
Here is another difference between us ; ours is a common 
Discipline — they call theirs the Record of the Proceedings 
of Conference, and the Record of the Proceedings of the 
Church ; but if it is not Discipline, I should like to 
know what it is ? My brother laughs. I thank you for 
your compliments — you are rich in all that sort of thing. 
I have met a mighty man to-day ; but he does not exactly 
square himself on the subject — for he does not come up 
to it. In the fourth Article of the Minutes of Conference 

referred to, it is " Resolved, that deliver an address 

before the next Conference." I want the direct chapter 
and verse for this ; for does it not regulate the action of 
their Church ? direct the actions of their ministers ? It 

also directs, " that and be delegates to such 

and such places," &c. They speak of their meeting as 
Christian Conference — why not give the name that God 
has given ? I would like all these things found in the 
29 



338 DISCUSSION ON 

Bible ; jet my brother says that his Discipline is in the 
Bible. You see they have an Annual Conference, a 
United States Convention ; now if " United States Con- 
vention " occurs in the Bible, I would like to find it ! 

Mr. Summerbell's Twenty-third address : 

Kind friends — My brother's attempt thus far, to prove 
that the Church has a right to make Constitutions and 
Disciplines, is an entire failure. He relies on one text 
of Scripture ; one quotation from human authority, and 
an appeal to the Minutes of a Conference ; all of which, 
we will examine. 

First, The text, Job xxxvi, 10, "He opened their 
ear to Discipline" But what Discipline ? "Why did 
not my brother quote it all ? This is the difficulty 
in all these human systems of religion ; half a text serves 
much better than the whole. I will read on for my 
brother, and see if it gives the Church a right to make 
Disciplines, " and commanded that they return from 
iniquity. If they obey and serve HIM, they shall spend 
their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasure : but 
if they obey not, they shall perish," &c. It seems to me, 
that this requires us to leave the service of all human 
systems of righteousness, and commandments of men, 
and serve God, as it is written : " Thou shalt worship the 
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," and gives 
us no authority to make Constitutions. So ' that my 
brother's only text fails him in his extremity. 

Second, He quotes Dr. Mosheim. But Mosheim says 
nothing of the right of the Church to make Constitutions ; 
not a word, but rather the contrary. He was combating 
the authority of the bishops, according to the Episcopalian 
Constitution, in favor of the liberty of the Churches to be 
governed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and shows that they 
had no human Discipline, but followed the example of 
the Jerusalem Church ; so that this quotation is on oxir 
side, and against our brother, and thus even his human 
authority fails. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 339 

Third, My brother, failing in both the Bible and hu- 
man authority, next seeks refuge in our Conference book, 
and endeavors to press this into his service. Could he 
have found in it a Constitution for the Churches, or any 
attempt to make a Constitution or Discipline, why then, 
he would have the authority of the Deer Creek Confer- 
ence — that 5 s all ! Rather poor authority to justify him 
in legislating for God's people. My brother, you have 
forgotten that the question is not whether we have made 
a Constitution, or whether the Deer Creek Conference 
gives you the right; but whether God has given this 
right. But even here his failure was still more signal. 
Here is his Constitution and Discipline. According to 
this, a Constitution for the Church must embrace both 
Creed and rules of government. So does his. Articles 
of Religion and Discipline are included, and all called 
a Constitution. But our Conference book is nothing of 
the kind ; but barely a record of the proceedings of that 
body of our people. There is there no Constitution, for 
the Bible is our only Constitution. There is there no 
Discipline, for the Bible is our only Discipline. And 
there is there no Creed, for the Bible is our only Creed. 
And I now demand of my brother, that he either show in 
that book a Constitution, Articles of Religion and Disci- 
pline, or confess that he has misrepresented us. Now, 
to show both the folly and unfairness of such proceeding 
in my brother, let me illustrate : 

First, The Methodist Protestants have a human Dis- 
cipline ; but beside this, they have Conferences and 
Conference books. They meet, and pass resolutions. 
They record the Minutes in their books. But they do 
not call these annual records new Constitutions and 
Disciplines, unless something more than the Minutes of 
their body be found there. They publish papers, and 
appoint meetings ; but they do not call those new Disci- 
plines, as he calls these things in us. 

Second, A Constitution is the fundamental law of the 
land, nation, or body of people, whose Constitution it is ; 



340 DISCUSSION ON 

but the Minutes of the proceedings of a body, are not the 
fundamental law of that body ; nor yet, the discipline of 
that body, much less the Creed ; but only a view of the 
executive modus operandi of the action of the Consti- 
tution. 

Third, Suppose a person should ask you for the Con- 
stitution of the State of Ohio, and you should take up 
the Records or Minutes of the Legislature, and begin to 

read to him, that Mr. on such a day, offered such 

and such resolutions, and say, this sir, is the Constitu- 
tion of Ohio ; would you not think that he was trifling 
with you ? And yet, this is precisely the method of my 
brother ; he takes a Conference Record, and calls it a 
Constitution. Intelligent people will see that this proves 
the absence of anything more to the point. My brother 
does not like jny quoting texts, and applying them to 
him. You all know that these were not applied per- 
sonally, but only to him, as the representative of his 
Creed system ; yet, I must be allowed to quote them. I 
cannot refrain from quoting the Bible, even to please 
my brother, for the Bible is the only Constitution 
and Discipline of the Christian Church ; and no one, 
preacher or layman, has the right to make any other: but 
according to my brother, every thing that we do or say, 
is a new Discipline. He complains of my treatment of 
his Creed ; but why, if we are to discuss the question of 
Disciplines ? He says that I have unchristianized some ; 
but I think not, have I ? He says, that what makes void 
the law, is not Discipline; but Article seven of their 
Discipline makes void the law of God, in the rights of 
colored people! He says that they have advanced on 
these Christians ; but is the world made better for it ? 
Then they were united, as the heathen said : "See how 
these Christians love each other!" Now they are divided, 
and the infidel says: "See how they hate each other!" 
But he thinks that no one insists that the Churches should 
walk by the same rule ; but the apostle does. 

But my brother demands of me to show him, chapter 
and verse, for the right to keep a record of the names of 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 341 

members of the Church. I refer him to Acts i, 15, 
" The number of names together, were about one hun- 
dred and twenty." But what is my brother's argument 
here ? Only, that if we have no Scripture authority, (and 
he says that we have this authority,) why then, he will 
insist upon it, that the names of the members are a Con- 
stitution, Creed and Discipline. Very well, then they 
have more than one Discipline. As to the name Con- 
ference, see Gal. ii, 6. 

My brother still urges objections to the Christian name ; 
but Clarke says, (and Clarke is authority with my bro- 
ther,) that the original word signifies that they were so 
called — Christians — by divine direction. See Acts xi, 26. 

My brother says, that it is impossible to have a visible 
Church, without a Constitution ; therefore, on his own 
premises, he has to admit, that the apostolic Church had 
a Constitution, or he must deny their visibility. The 
latter, he dare not do, and hence, will be driven to 
the former ; but that was too early for his. What 
then, was their Constitution ? Why, the same as ours. 
It was the Bible. (See Mosheim, Vol. i, p. 39, of which 
my brother quoted a part.) They ever held that the 
Scriptures were able to make us wise unto salvation, and 
to make the man of Cod perfect ; thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works. 

Now, since the holy Bible was the Constitution of the 
apostolic Church, in the days when the banner of the 
cross was borne victoriously from Jerusalem, to the re- 
motest nations, o'er oriental sands, and northern snows ; 
o'er the classic fields of Greece, and amid the halls of the 
world's capital, everywhere triumphant ; when sinners 
were converted by thousands, and churches planted in 
every clime ; when the divisions of sectariansm were 
unknown, and the astonished heathen exclaimed : " See 
how these Christians love one another," why should 
GocTs holy Word not be the Constitution now ? 

And here I take my second position, that the Church 
now, has no right to make a Constitution. My brother 



342 DISCUSSION ON 

admitted, first, that the Bible is the highest law in the 
Church of God, and that any thing contrary thereto, is 
void. This is the nature of a Constitution. The Bible 
then, is the Constitution of the Christian Church, even 
by my brother's admission. Webster says, that a Con- 
stitution is the fundamental law ; and surely my bro- 
ther will not deny, that the Bible is the fundamental law. 
So that by his own admission, and the authority of 
Webster, quoted by himself, I have proved that the Con- 
stitution of the Church, is the Holy Bible. 

And now the only question is, whether Christ has 
delegated authority to others, to make another Constitu- 
tion. If Christ has, I demand that he show us the text. 
If, as my brother contends, Christ has left the Discipline 
of the Church an open question, to be determined by time 
and place, so should we. We have no right to bind for 
others, what he has left free for us all. He must admit, 
that we have a right to practice, what he has a right to 
put in his Discipline ; for if it is not Scriptural, he has 
no right to put it there, and if it is, we have sufficient 
authority. So, if electing a president (Gr., Episcopus, 
Bishop), is Scriptural, it is enough, if not, putting it in 
the Discipline can not make it right. Let him show, 
then, tha,t something we practice is not Scriptural ; and 
be sure, that he does not condemn himself in doing it. 

To make a Constitution is an act of sovereign power — 
above ordinary legislation ; but Christ is our King, and I 
assert that he has given no one authority to legislate for 
his kingdom on earth, but has taught us to pray that 
God's will — that is, God's Discipline, not our own will or 
lavis — that God's will might be done on earth, even as it 
is done in heaven. But there are no commandments of 
men, nor human Creeds there. The early Christians 
held Conferences; yet they made no Disciplines — no 
Creeds. That called the Apostles' Creed, was never seen 
by the apostles, but was a symbol of the truths they had 
taught, compiled by others in after years. If a Consti- 
tution beside the Bible had been necessary, Christ, who 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 343 

knew all the wants of his Church, through all coming 
time, would have given it one ; or the apostles, whom 
he left behind, would have compiled one. He desires to 
know our authority for holding a Convention in Cincin- 
nati, as though the Bible gave no such authority, but the 
Discipline did. If the Bible does not, they have no right 
to put it in their Discipline. Did my brother's Disci- 
pline command him to hold this debate ? In the chapter 
and verse where he finds the one, I will the other. 

Jesus says, " Ye call me Lord and Master, and ye say 
well, for so I am." Again, he says, " Learn of me." He 
was a teacher sent from God. We are his disciples, that 
is, scholars ; and he thus sustains the relation to his Church 
that a teacher does to his school. Now, it is the duty 
of disciples to obey the master ; and of scholars to obey 
the rules of the school — but not to legislate for it. Who 
ever heard of a teacher leaving his scholars to make 
their own Discipline ? My brother has failed in every 
effort to produce authority to make Constitutions and 
Disciplines, as I have demonstrated. I will now proceed 
with my argument for receiving the Bible alone as a Rule 
of Faith and Government. This we do : 

1. Because, it contains all the directions that God has 
given to guide us from earth to heaven. N 

2. Because, by general consent, all who humbly form 
their lives by its rules are saved. 

3. Because, it contains the New Covenant of salvation, 
with all its conditions. 

4. Because, it contains the religious instructions given 
by all the inspired teachers God has ever sent. 

5. Because, it contains the rules, and discipline by 
which millions have been saved. 

6. Because, it is dictated by the only being capable of 
constructing a perfect rule. 

7. Because, there is no promised blessing for obedience 
to any other rule. 

8. Because, we are commanded to hear those who 
speak in it, that we may be saved. 



844 DISCUSSION ON 

9. Because, it tells us just what characters shall be 
saved, and who shall be lost. 

10. Because, it tells us how to form such characters, 
and where to look for aid. 

11. Because, it tells us in many places, what to do to 
be saved, and it tells how to do it. 

12. Because, God has never pointed us to any other 
rule. 

13. Because, salvation is promised to all who love God 
and men, and it teaches us how to love them. 

14. Because, salvation is promised to all who obey 
God's commands, which are contained in the Bible. 

15. Because, its instructions are called a Rule, with 
the promise of peace and mercy. — Gal. vi, 10. 

16. Because, the Saviour's words are there, which to 
obey is life eternal. 

17. Because, the knowledge of God is there, whom to 
know is life eternal. 

18. Because, the account of Jesus is there, which to 
believe is life eternal. 

19. Because, it contains the Scriptures, which are 
able to make us wise unto salvation. 

20. Because, those Scriptures are given, that we may 
he thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 

21. Because, they are given, that we may he perfect; 
which is all any one can desire. 

22. Because, it contains the Law of the Lord which is 
perfect, converting the soul. — Ps. xiv, 7. 

23. Because, it contains the testimony of the Lord, 
which is sure, making wise the simple. 

24. Because, God declares that He has done all for us 
that he could ; but if other rules were necessary he could 
have made them. 

25. Because, it is the only book that all Christians 
agree in, or can ever be united under. 

26. Because, whether they love or hate each other, 
agree or disagree, they all acknowledge its authority. 

27. Because, every sin is a violation of the Bible, and 
every act of holiness is conformable to it. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 345 

28. Because, no one considers an appeal to the Bible 
in justification of any immorality, as either candid or 
honest. 

29. Because, adherence to it, forms a universal bro- 
therhood, united in the bonds of heaven. 

30. Because, all other rules being the landmarks of 
sects, are necessarily schismatical. 

31. Because, it was the guide of all the saints whose 
names it records, who are now in heaven. 

32. Because, it contains sermons by the Son of God, 
which he said, if we obeyed, we should live. 

33. Because it contains rules of prayer, by which, if 
we are guided, answers of peace and mercy are promised. 

34. Because, those who are not satisfied with it can 
Hot agree upon any other, but multiply rules indefinitely. 

35. Because, no other rule has a source that will com- 
mand the respect of mankind. 

36. Because, the nearer that men approach to heaven, 
the better they understand and love their Bibles. 

37. Because, the nearer men approach to heaven the 
less they think of other rules. 

38. Because, it is the only rule for which we can claim 
the promise: it shall not pass away. 

39. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
manded to preach. 

40. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
manded to search. 

41. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
manded to keep. 

42. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
manded to hold fast. 

43. Because, it contains the only faith that we are 
commanded to contend for. 

44. Because, it is the only rule which all acknowledge 
perfect. 

45. Because, it is the rule by which all reformers pro- 
fess to be guided. 

46. Because, it is the only rule that all will blush to 
violate. 



846 DISCUSSION ON 

47. Because, it is the only rule to which all Christians 
appeal. 

48. Because, it is the only rule that has the sanction 
of the apostolic Church. 

49. Because, it is the only rule that embraces the 
whole revelation of God. 

50. Because, it contains all of God's will concerning 
us ; and none other does. 

51. Because, it is the only rule that contains the whole 
of the Christian religion. 

52. Because, there are some men in all denominations 
who despise human Disciplines, and others who only 
receive them in part, as my brother. 

Mr. Flood's Twenty-third reply : 

I will read to you the definition of Constitution, as 
given by Webster : " The act of constituting, enacting, 
establishing, or appointing. The state of being ; that 
form of being, or peculiar structure and connection of 
parts, which makes or characterizes a system or body. 
Hence, the particular frame or temperament of the hu- 
man body is called its Constitution. The frame, or tem- 
per of mind, affections, or passions ; the established form 
of government in a state, kingdom, or country ; a sys- 
tem of fundamental rules, principles, and ordinances for 
the government of a state or nation. A particular law, 
ordinance, or regulation, made by the authority of any 
superior, civil, or ecclesiastical. A system of fundamen- 
tal principles for the government of rational and social 
beings." 

I will now read Webster's definition of "Discipline:'' 
" To instruct, or educate ; to inform the mind; to pre- 
pare by instructing in correct principles and habits ; to 
instruct and govern ; to teach rules and practice, and 
accustom to order and subordination ; to correct ; to 
chastise ; to punish ; to execute the laws of the Church 
on offenders, with a view to bring them to repentance 
and reformation of life ; to advance and prepare by in 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 347 

struction." With these references I shall now invite 
your attention to Mosheim. I read from page 39, " Such 
was the Constitution of the Church in its infancy, when 
its assemblies were neither numerous nor splendid." 

I now state that not one single passage, quoted by my 
friend, has any more bearing upon this subject, than it 
has upon the condition of any other planet than this one. 
He is here to prove that the Word of God prohibits the 
Church from making a Constitution for her government. 
I have not yet met with that prohibition. Yet he stands 
up here and insists that he has not been answered. I 
assert that there is not one of his texts that has the 
slightest possible bearing upon the subject ; hence, it was 
a waste of words, and his attempt to prove that the Bible 
prohibits the making a Constitution, has been a failure. 
He says, I can not tell the difference between tweedledum 
and tweedledee. Thank you, brother, for your high 
opinion. 

He says, the Deer Creek Conference which I quoted, 
is not very good authority. Oh ! he shakes his head ; 
I don't know but he might shake the balance of his hair 
off. I know my authority, though I know it is like ex- 
tracting his teeth when I meet him upon his own ground, 
— the records of their own Conference. He tells you that 
this is only the record of the proceedings of that Confer- 
ence ; but this Conference pretends to act under the Dis- 
cipline of their Church. My brother refers to legislative 
bodies, and says, that the records of their proceedings 
are not the statutes of their Constitutions ; but that one 
might refer to the Constitution to know whether any par- 
ticular act was legal or not, or whether it was according 
to the Constitution. He says, that their Constitution is the 
Bible ; but he must point out how they appoint a presi- 
dent or a secretary. My brother says, that if our Dis- 
cipline differs from the Bible, it annuls the Constitution. 
Now I defy him to point out a single article in opposition 
to the Word of God. It says, that all Church trials shall 
be conducted on Gospel principles ; and " that all offences 



348 DISCUSSION ON 

condemned by the Word of God, as being sufficient to 
exclude a person from the kingdom of grace and glory, 
shall subject ministers, preachers, and members to expul- 
sion from the Church." The brother can not find a sin- 
gle reference to the Book of Discipline, which says that 
any one can be expelled for violating the laws of the 
Book of Discipline. 

I wish to invite your attention on the word " Church." 
I quote first from Dr. Buck : 

" The Greek word, ixxw^Lu^ denotes an assembly met 
about business, whether lawful or unlawful." — Dr. Buck 
on Church. 

So it is Dr. Buck against Dr. Summerbell. Dr. 
Watson says : 

"The Greek word, ixxitjola, so rendered, denotes an 
assembly met about business, whether spiritual or tem- 
poral. — Acts xix, 52-59 :" Dr. Watson on Church. 

So it is Dr. Watson against Dr. Summerbell ; yet, 
my brother says it is not so. I have never been dubbed 
with that title, and I have no disposition for the honor. 

I now invite your attention to the notice in the " Gos- 
pel Herald" the organ of the Christians, announcing 
that " the next Convention of the Christian Denomina- 
tion will meet in Cincinnati, and that so and so is Presi- 
dent," &c. I want the chapter and verse for this, from 
his Discipline, or Bible, for I never found it in mine. 
He quotes from the Acts, that the Church numbered a 
hundred and twenty, and therefore assumes that it is 
right to have a book in which to make a record. If 
Dr. Summerbell is right, in saying that we have no 
right to make a Constitution and Discipline, then he is 
wrong, in saying that they have a right to keep such a 
book as the Deer Creek Records, and a clerk to make 
the entries. 

Dr. Clarke says that the name, Christian, was given by 
Divine authority. I never questioned that it was so, but 
I asserted that the Church existed before it was so named, 
and that it received different names previous to this. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 349 

My brother grows exceedingly eloquent about the rise 
of the Church, and its progress over the classic plains. 
But what has this to do with the proposition, that the 
Church has no right, since the Apostolic age, to make 
rules for her government. He wishes to know, if when 
crossing Jordan, I expect to take my Discipline with 
me, and intimates that we may take the Bible with us. 
It is something like the preacher who said, he could tell 
the secrets of the three heavens. He says, the Church 
has no right to make Constitutions and Disciplines ; 
yet I will turn to the page, and show him how a Presi- 
dent and Secretary have to be elected. I call your atten- 
tion to another record : " Resolved, That a Committee 

of three be appointed, to wait on Elders , and 

effect an adjustment of the differences existing between 
them." Here, you see, that their acts are to be regarded 
as authoritative. " A resolution was offered and received, 
that the candidates for the ministry should be examined 
as to their qualifications." Here, you see, the candidates 
are to be examined on doctrinal questions. When they 
present themselves for ordination, a- committee is ap- 
pointed to examine into their views on cardinal points. 
I want chapter and verse, as authority for such a com- 
mittee to examine a candidate. Here is something which 
draws very near to a Creed. Who, pray, are to be the 
judges of the doctrinal views, if the right of private 
judgment is to be maintained, as my brother would have 
it ? I want to know from his Discipline, how they take 
this privilege ! Then he reads the words of our Saviour, 
" Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 
eternal life," and over this great injunction of our divine 
Master, he grows very eloquent. He says that Jesus 
does not say, Search the Discipline. Who ever claimed 
to give that authority to the Discipline, which we claim 
for the Word of God ? It is a provisional means on the 
part of the Church, which can not be done without, and 
I have proved from this book of the Deer Creek Confer- 
ence, that it is with them. 



350 DISCUSSION ON 

Then he submits some twenty propositions, which I 
shall pass over very briefly, for not a single one of them 
has the slightest tendency to come within gunshot of the 
proposition under discussion, which relates to the right of 
the Church to ( make Rules and Disciplines. He talks 
about our " little book " of Discipline, but his book is 
very much larger than ours. Now I will take the big 
book and put it on my shoulder ; here it is, and I set one 
off against the other. When my brother is about to close 
his address, he thinks of offering up a prayer that God 
will hasten the day when all Disciplines shall be destroyed, 
and he lifts his soul in pious ejaculations before God, 
praying that it may be so. But you will wear out, my 
brother, before your prayers will be answered, for it 
existed in the Church in its infancy, and my friend here, 
in the nineteenth century, is unable to get along without 
it. On Sabbath last, when my brother admitted the 
young man as a member of his Church, he put the 
Bible into his hand and said, " Do you receive this as 
your only rule of faith and practice?" and on his 
assenting, he was received into the fellowship of the 
Church. This is all right, but I want the chapter and 
verse for putting the Bible into his hands. I think I 
have a right to complain, when he arraigns others for 
doing that which he does himself. He complains, that 
we subject new members to a probationary term of six 
months. This is needful, to ascertain if the sheepskin 
conceals a wolf; if it does, we pass them over to those 
who like to have them. 

The great principles of Church government recognized 
by the Church of God in all ages, will live as long as 
the Church lasts — I will say, as long as time lasts ; for 
God will in all times open the ears of his true Church to 
Discipline, and train them in all that appertains to the 
faithful observance of the internal and external observa- 
tions of their religious life. Discipline will live, sir, 
nevertheless, when he prays for its destruction, let him 
pray in faith ; and he had better try and muster all his 
faith, when he prays upon this subject. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 351 

Now it is my practice, when I think my people in 
error, always to make clean the inside of my own dwell- 
ing, that the people with whom I live, may stand 
reproved. 

Me. Summerbell's Twenty-fourth address : 

I presume that the intelligent part of this congrega- 
tion, will easily decide whether the fact, that the Deer 
Creek Conference keep Minutes of their annual meetings, 
is a sufficient warrant for the Church of God in all ages, 
to make Constitutions and Disciplines. Webster defines 
a Constitution to be a system of fundamental rules or 
principles of government ; but is not the Bible a funda- 
mental law ? which then is the Constitution ? But this 
little book says on the title-page, " Constitution of the 
Methodist Protestant Church ;" according to that, it is 
the fundamental law, with which all other laws must be 
made to agree, or they are null and void ; hence, if the 
Bible conflicts with this little book, the Bible itself is, so 
far, null and void, for this is the Constitution. And such 
is the case. The Bible tells us that we are all brethren ; 
but this makes it null and void, and deprives the colored 
man of his rights. This human Constitution, substituted 
by men, instead of the divine Constitution given by God, 
embraces both Discipline and Articles of Eeligion; 
hence, is a law both of faith and government. What 
right have men thus to legislate for Jesus Christ % Who 
gave them authority to dictate Articles of Eeligion, con- 
trary to the higher teachings of the Bible ? My brother 
complains of my exposing the little book. If it grieves 
him, I am sorry : yet, if he is ashamed of the .book, I am 
glad. If he does not like to have it examined, he may 
have it and take it away. It cost me eighteen cents, and 
he may have it for half-price, and burn it if he chooses. 
These human Creeds have had their daw and their influ- 
ence is passing away — and so it should. If they are 
enforced, they are tyrannical, and cause divisions ; if 
they are not, they are deceptive — professing that the 



352 discussion on 

Church members are governed by the Discipline, when 
they are not. On Sunday last, he requested all to leave 
his Church who did not believe his Discipline. But if 
they do, brother Flood must leave, for he publicly acknow- 
ledged that he did not believe it at all. He is evidently 
ashamed of it, for he will not allow me to call it a 
Creed. But why then does he not abandon it ? He wants 
our authority for appointing a Convention in Cincinnati. 
I answer, the same which he has for attending this debate. 
My brother stamps the pulpit, but he will have to stamp 
much louder, before the people will believe all that he 
has advanced. He asks, if their Constitution expels any 
one for simply violating the Discipline ? In answer, see 
page 44, where " Ministers can not be received, unless 
they approve of the Constitution and Discipline, and are 
willing to obey it;" yet my brother only approves of a 
part of it. It requires candidates for the ministry to read 
Clarke, Fletcher, Wesley, and others, whose names fill 
two pages or more. No matter how averse to the doc- 
trine of those men, or how well read in the Bible, he 
must read, and of course, be able to undergo an exami- 
nation in these authors before he can preach. But the 
Bible makes no such requirements. Now will you reject 
the Constitution, my brother ? 

Me. Flood.— No. 

Mr. Summerbell. — He promised to reject it if it was 
contrary to the Word of God ; and I hope, through 
divine grace, he will yet see the folly of it, and give it 
up. He says that Church, signifies a promiscuous assem- 
bly, good or bad — a secular body — and quotes Buck and 
Watson to. prove it — who think it a translation of sxxi^aia. 
Do you believe, on this human authority, that the Church 
is a mere promiscuous assembly of good men or sinners, 
assembled in a theater or anywhere else ? My brother 
does not believe it. No one believes it. The word Church, 
is the Greek word xvpvaxb^ Anglicized — the same as bap- 
tism, bishop, &c, and signifies, the Lord's, in the posses- 
sive case ; hence, no sinner can be of the Church proper. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 353 

It is not a translation of axx^ala that word not being 
translated at all. King James, under whom the transla- 
tion was made, gave especial orders that well-known 
ecclesiastical terms should not be changed or translated ; 
therefore, Church, the same in a varied orthography as 
Kirk, from xv^axou was substituted for sxx^ola. He fre- 
quently calls me by various names for a little pleasantry, 
but I have no reason to complain ; could I expect that he 
would not nickname me, when he nicknames his God ? — 
calling him Trinity, a name which the mouth of the Lord 
has never named. He who will take such liberties with 
his God, will hardly refrain taking them with an oppo- 
nent. But I warn my friend, that this does not prove the 
right of the Church to make Constitutions and Disciplines 
for the government of God's people. He brings forward 
one of our Conference Minute books, but with all his skill, 
he has neither found in it a human Constitution for the 
Church, nor anything approbating one. But he found 
something. Yes ! He found that on the application of a 
candidate for admission to the ministry, we examined the 
applicant with regard to his qualifications; and so he 
thinks that we must have a human Constitution. Not at 
all, my brother. This is required by the Divine Constitu- 
tion. The apostle says, u Lay hands suddenly on no man, 
but commit these things to faithful men, who shall be 
able to teach others." What he has made of the book, 
save a little fun, you can judge. Nor can you fail to see 
the difference between his fuss and fun, and the arguments 
which I have produced, proving that the Church has no 
right to make her own Constitution. The question is, 
has God given this right ? not, can we prove it by infer- 
ence! or from the Deer Creek Conference! Has my 
brother quoted one solitary text to show that this right 
has been given ? I have never witnessed a more entire 
failure ; yet he assumes the right to legislate for heaven, 
and govern all God's children — to take the throne of 
government from the Lord Jesus Christ, and to make 
Constitutions for his followers. His claims surpass those 
30 



354 DISCUSSION ON 

of the Czar of Russia, and when we demand the docu- 
ments to prove his authority, he goes to the Deer Creek 
Conference, and — and fails to find them. He claims a 
right infinitely higher than that of making political Con- 
stitutions for all the nations under heaven, and is satisfied 
w T ith the authority of a misrepresentation of the Minutes 
of a Conference ! The only Constitution of the primi- 
tive Church was the Holy Bible, with the divine religion 
of Jesus Christ written in the hearts of men, as proved 
by my brother's own quotation from Mosheim. And 
such should be the only Constitution now, and must be, 
before the peace of Zion can be restored. 

I will now be forced to sum up, and close this discus- 
sion, though I have presented but a small part of the 
matter I had prepared. Forty-eight logical reasons re- 
main unoffered ; yet, chough has been said, and sufficient 
authority given both from Scripture and reason, to prove 
that the Church has no authority to dictate her own 
Constitution and Discipline. 

1st. I have shown that my brother's Discipline itself, 
declares, that the Word of God is the only rule of faith 
and practice. Hence, the Church has no right to make 
any other. 

2d. That it gives the Church a name, " Methodist 
Protestant Church," which has not the Divine sanction. 

3d. That it deprives preachers of advancement, unless 
they approve of it. 

4th. That it requires more of its preachers, than the 
Bible does. Page 134. 

5th. That it deprives the genuine convert of full fel- 
lowship, under six months. 

6th. That it prefers the children of their own members, 
to religious advantages, before others, equally good. 

7th. That it enjoins rites not found in the Word of 
God. 

8th. That it says, that we are justified by faith only, 
contrary to the apostle, who says that we are not justified 
by faith only. — James ii. 24. 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 355 

9th. I have shown, that if it is right to make a Con 
stitution, then, it is sin to resist it and reject it. 

10th. That this right to make it, must belong to the 
majority ; but my brother has resisted the majority. 
Protestants have rejected the Eoman Catholic right ; the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has resisted the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, and the Protestant Methodist Church 
has resisted the Methodist Episcopal Church, proving 
that he, in his own case, denies this authoritv of the 
Church to make Constitutions for his government. 

11th. That his Constitution is a fundamental law, 
embracing both Articles of Religion and Discipline. 
Now, if the Church has a right to make these Articles 
of Religion, then, it is sin to resist that authority, or to 
reject that Creed, which will turn us all over again to the 
Eoman Catholic Church. 

12th. I have shown, by very many texts, that the 
Bible contains all-sufficient rules for Discipline or Con- 
stitution ; and that it is in vain, to worship God, teaching 
for doctrines, the commandments of men. 

13th. I have the brother's own admission, that there 
can be no other fundamental law, except the Bible ; but 
a Constitution is & fundamental law — hence, it is wrong 
to make a Constitution. 

14th. I have proved that the making of a Constitution, 
is a sovereign act, requiring sovereign authority ; but 
that Christians being subjects, and not sovereigns, they 
can possess no such authority, unless it has been dele- 
gated by Christ ; but my brother has found no one text, 
which gives such authority to the Church. 

15th. I have proved by the Bible, that God requires 
not of us to legislate, and to make laws ; but to submit 
to, and to obey laws. 

16th. Christ being King, and having, as I have proved, 
and my brother's admission confirms, given us the Bible 
as our Constitution, it is rebellion against his govern- 
ment, in us, to make a Constitution, and attempt to legis- 
late for Christ. 



356 DISCUSSION ON 

17th. Again, I have proved that man not only lacks 
the authority, but the ability to legislate for God's people ; 
since he fully understands neither the mysteries of reli- 
gion, nor the nature of man. To fear God and keep 
his commandments, is the whole duty of man ; but God 
has neither required of us to make laws and legislate for 
his kingdom, nor yet to obey the laws which others 
make. I challenge my brother to bring forward any 
authority for making laws to govern God's Church. 

18th. It is said that Jesus shall reign; but how shall 
he reign, if others make the laws without his approba- 
tion ? We pray that God's kingdom may come, and that 
his will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven ; but 
have they these little human Constitutions to form Metho- 
dists, Presbyterians, &c, of the inhabitants of heaven ? 

19th. Christ is our King, and to him we should sub- 
mit, and not rebel against his government, and make 
new Constitutions, and divide his children, bringing 
some under this Constitution, and some under that, thus 
rending the Church of Christ. 

20th. Those who follow T such Constitutions, are of 
necessity, separated from those who do not. And of 
those who thus create parties, and build up sects, the 
apostle says : "Mark them which cause divisions, and 
avoid them." Mark them! and "reject the heretic after 
the first and second admonition." Brethren, while we 
cherish a kindly feeling toward those in error, we must 
bear our united testimony against the error itself, and 
put these things from amongst us. I have presented only 
a small portion of the arguments which I have prepared, 
against Creed and Constitution making ; but these are 
enough. He has quoted barely a single passage of 
Scripture on his side, while I have cited you to very 
many condemning the practice, and proving the all-suf- 
ficiency of the Word of God. He answers these texts by 
the very short method of saying : " Why they have 
nothing to do with the subject" Of course not ! What 
would I quote them for, or he complain of them, if they 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 357 

had % The Minutes of the Deer Creek Conference (a 
body, I had hardly heard of,) is the only authority to 
him. From their Minutes, he finds abundant authority 
to make Creeds and Constitutions for God's Church. 
This, however, must be left for your decision. And here 
I close. To this large and attentive Congregation, I 
return my sincere thanks for the patience with which 
you have listened to us from day to day. If we have 
spoken any unchristian word, may that God, whose 
mercy we have heretofore shared, yet forgive and pardon 
us. To the gentlemen Moderators, and our kind friends, 
the reporters, I also return my sincere thanks for the 
faithful performance of their duties. And may we all 
meet, when we have passed from the shores of time, 
where human Creeds are unnamed and unknown, and 
God in Christ, without a rival, reigns. Amen. 

Me. Flood's Twenty-fourth reply : 

Mr. Summerbell sets out by inquiring, are there two 
fundamental laws. He assumes, that the Methodist 
Protestant Constitution is the fundamental law, and if 
this be so, the Bible can not be fundamental. I have 
quoted from our fundamental law, if he so calls it, of the 
Methodist Protestant Discipline, that no rule was author- 
ized to be passed, contravening the law of God in any 
sense ; hence, our Constitution and Book of Discipline are 
founded upon God's Word. The business of my brother 
here, is to prove that it is not so, and he says he has pre- 
sented a hundred and fifty proofs, drawn from Scripture 
and reason. O, how logically my brother has reasoned! 
I am perfectly willing that the report should show the 
strength of his reasoning. He advises you that a very 
large amount of testimony is still reserved, and that he 
has not emptied his barrel. I am sorry for this, since he 
has not yet presented a single argument nor evidence 
from God's Word, that the Church is prohibited, since 
the Apostolic age, from making a Discipline for the gov- 
ernment of the Church. 



358 DISCUSSION ON 

He alludes to the Articles of Religion and Discipline 
in the book, and turning round, asks if I am not ashamed 
of them. I say, no ! it has been my business to defend 
them. He then refers to a remark I made on the Sabbath, 
that I invited those to leave the Church, who did not 
agree with our Discipline. I have no idea, that those 
in this community who are Methodist Protestants, will 
be likely to become anything else. My brother professes 
to be opposed to levity, yet once he laughed himself, when 
I could not see any one else laugh with him. He asks 
where we get authority for the course of reading laid 
down as essential for those preparing for the ministry. 
I not only agree with this requirement, but I should not 
object to increase the list, and perhaps this discussion, if 
it should be given to the world, might be added and be 
found serviceable in informing those who come hereafter, 
that my brother has a Discipline — that he has the very 
thing he condemns in others. I ask him, where he finds 
authority for forming a Ministerial association ? Has he 
any ? No ! Where is his authority for an Annual Con- 
vention ? Nowhere. He asks me, where is my authority 
for attending this debate. I am commanded to teach the 
truth, and therefore I am here. I thank God, it is my 
privilege to expose heresy, wherever it may appear. He 
directs your attention to the word Church, and says my 
definition is not admissible ; but I am perfectly willing to 
leave it to such authorities as Drs. Watson and Buck, 
who show that the word is employed to signify a promis- 
cuous assembly, but that by common consent it was 
applied to religious assemblies ; that it applied to the 
Church in its local capacity ; to the Church universally ; 
to the Church militant, and to the Church in its triumph- 
ant state. The brother complains most grievously of the 
term Dr., being applied to him. It has been whispered 
in my ear, that he has not been styled Dr. by any insti- 
tution of learning in the country, but as he arrayed 
himself against Dr. Clarke, and read from his own 
pamphlet, I recommend him to the favorable notice of 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 359 

the excellent institution in this neighborhood, and to its 
worthy head, Mr. Horace Mann, for whom I have the 
most profound respect. He refers to the Conference 
book ; but if he scoffs at his own, no wonder he does at 
mine. This Conference book is the record of the Chris- 
tian Association of the Deer Creek district for many years 
past ; but the truth is out at last, that this so called 
Christian Church has Records and Discipline that can 
not be found, in what they recognize as their only Dis- 
cipline; that they have officers in their Church, whose 
names even can not be found any where in the Bible ; yet 
they tell you this is their only book of Discipline, and I 
have called upon my brother in vain, to point out 
chapter and verse. 

He says I have proved nothing, but this assertion 
arises from an internal consciousness that he has proved 
nothing. Have I not shown you that the word Discipline 
occurs in the Bible ? and have I not shown, upon the 
authority of God's Word, that if their ears are to be 
opened to Discipline, if it is not found in the Bible in 
the regular form, the Church has to make it ? He has 
forty-eight reasons which he has not presented, but why 
has he reserved them ? I suppose he contemplates a 
paper- war on this subject. He takes great pains to tell 
the audience I have made an utter failure. Pity that he 
can not make me sensible of it ; it is the discovery of 
my distinguished opponent, who is certainly a very 
remarkable man. He passes a very high eulogy upon 
the Baptist Church, but they neither agree with him in 
discipline nor doctrine. All that he has said in com- 
mendation of that Christian Church I can indorse, and 
were it necessary, could say much more, for I have known 
them long and expect to love them to the end. He says, 
I deny the authority of the Methodist Protestant Church. 
I never said any such thing, neither here nor anywhere 
else. I simply said, the Church has a right to make this 
Constitution, and if she discovers a possibility of making 
improvements therein, there is no passage in God's 



360 DISCUSSION ON 

Word prohibiting her. The Wesleyan Church had a 
right to come out of the Church of England, but these 
are matters of choice, and depend upon the judgment of 
those concerned. I have shown, that no specific form of 
government is laid down in the New Testament. The 
Church, with her eyes open to this fact, has a right to 
form such regulations as her judgment approves, and no 
one has a right to stand up and assert that in so doing 
we overturn the Kingly office of Christ. 

My brother wants to know, if there is any Discipline 
in heaven. I answer reverentially, I know nothing on 
that subject. Our Discipline relates to the Church in its 
militant, not in its triumphant state. Heaven is a place 
of order, and the Church of God should be a place of 
order, and whenever the Church is denied the privilege 
of making Rules and Discipline, it can not be a Church 
of order. I have shown from other authorities, that they 
make Rules ; that each individual Church has a Clerk, 
and have Books of Record, in which to record their 
transactions ; but there is no specific authority for this 
in the Bible, as to the manner in which it should be 
done. 

I throw back w 7 ith all its force, the statement of entire 
failure ; but I willingly leave it to the intelligence of this 
audience. 1 invite your attention to the opening speech 
of my opponent, and whether he has not been wandering 
from the point ever since. 

I wish you to notice the contrast which exists between 
our Constitution and Discipline and theirs. Theirs exists 
in fragments — some printed and some written in a per- 
fectly confused manner — part here, in this paper relating 
to the Cincinnati Convention. My brother seems very 
uneasy about this record, for it shows that they take the 
liberty of examining candidates on what they consider 
cardinal points of doctrine. I shall thank any one who 
will tell me of a single text he has quoted to demonstrate 
his position, that the Church has no right to make a Con- 
stitution and Discipline for her government and regula- 



CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 361 

tion ; at the same time I am desirous that he should show 
where he gets his Discipline from for all the things I 
have pointed out. His Discipline is, for the most part, 
unwritten; it exists, but it is in the minds of his people, 
and out of that which is unwritten, they attempt to har- 
monize the fact, to square with the teachings of the Bible. 
Our Constitution is here before us ; I am not ashamed of 
it, but am willing to stand up and defend it. But my 
brother has displayed a great fear of theirs ; he seems 
as though he would like it to take legs and run away. 
Our Constitution is founded upon the law of God. It is 
required, in every particular, to conform thereto ; and if 
any thing in word or spirit should not accord with the 
Word of God, it is nugatory — it has no force nor power ; 
for no law is allowed to be so construed as to contravene 
the law of God in any sense. Which, then, is most 
deserving of respect, the Methodist Protestant Book of 
Discipline, or the imperfect one of the Christians, or, as 
they are more generally called, New Lights ? Ours is 
honestly and openly published to the world ; theirs is 
hidden in a corner, concealed in books and papers, pub- 
lished by their own denomination ; and yet unblushingly 
they stand up and say we are opposed to^all books of 
Discipline. 

Mr. Summerbell. Amen. 

Mr. Flood. He says amen ; I suppose it is an amen 
of affirmation of the argument. Mr. Summerbell says, 
that is not true. I thank him ; he is very polite. When 
amen is used it is in a sense of affirmation, and I sup- 
posed he used it thus. I have made it appear that the 
Methodist Protestant Church claimed the Bible as the 
only sufficient rule of Faith and Discipline, and that 
all minor Discipline must conform to that. 
31 



DISCUSSION 



ON 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY 



PROPOSITION POR DISCUSSION. 

u Mankind, through the transgression of Adam, (by which he fell 
from grace, until redemption was promised by Christ,) are by 
nature entirely depraved." 

Key. J. M. Flood affirms ; N. Summerbell denies. 

Mr. Flood's First address, and Twenty-fifth speech : 

We enter upon the discussion of the last proposition 
submitted for investigation at this time, and all will 
^readily admit the great importance of the doctrine in- 
volved : man's moral depravity in his fallen state. 

First, we remark, man was created in purity. Gen. 
i, 27, " So God created man in his own image, in the 
image of God created he him, male and female created 
he them." Eccles. vii, 29, " Lo ! this only have I found, 
that God hath made man upright, but they have sought 
out many inventions." 

Second, Man has fallen into sin and ruin. Gen. 
iii, 17-19, "And unto Adam he said, because thou 
hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast 
eaten of the tree of which 1 commanded thee, saying, 
thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy 
sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy 
life; thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to 
thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field, in the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return 
unto the ground, for out of it was thou taken, for dust 
thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." 
362 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY, 363 

Third : We remark that all men, in their fallen state, 
are morally depraved. Gen. vi, 11, " The earth also was 
corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with vio- 
lence ; and God looked upon the earth, and behold it 
was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the 
earth." Job xv, 16, "How much more abominable and 
filthy is man that drinketh iniquity like water ;" Ps. xiv, 
1-3, " The fool hath said in his heart there is no God ; 
they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there 
is none that doeth good ; the Lord looked down upon the 
children of men, to see if there were any that did seek 
God, they are all gone aside, they are altogether become 
filthy, there is none that doeth good, no not one ;" Rom. 
iii, 9, 20, " What then ! are we better than they ? No, in 
nowise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written, there is 
none righteous, no not one, there is none that under- 
standeth, there is none that seeketh after God ; they are 
all gone out of the way, they are altogether become un- 
profitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one ; 
their throat is an open sepulcher, with their tongues they 
have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips, 
their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet 
are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in 
their w T ays, and the way of peace have they not known, 
there is no fear of God before their eyes ; now we know 
that what things soever the law sayeth, it sayeth to them 
who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, 
and all the world may become guilty before God ; there- 
fore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justi- 
fied in his sight." Colossians iii, 21, " If there had been 
a law given which could have given life, verily righteous- 
ness should have been by the law, but the Scripture hath 
concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
Jesus Christ might be given unto them that believe." 

Fourth : Human nature, in its fallen condition, is 
entirely depraved. Gen. vi, 5, "And God saw that the 
wickedness of man was great in the earth, that every 



364 DISCUSSION ON 

imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil, 
and that continually." Ps. v, 9, "For there is no faith- 
fulness in their mouth, their inward heart is very wicked- 
ness, their throat is an open sepulcher, they flatter with 
their tongue." Eom. vii, 18, "For I know that in me, 
that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." 1 Cor. ii, 

14, "For the natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, nei- 
ther can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned." 2 Cor. v, 14, " If one died for all, then were 
all dead." Ephes. ii, 13, "And you hath he quickened 
who were dead in trespasses and sins." Eph. ii, 3, 
"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times 
past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the 
flesh and mind, and were by nature the children of 
wrath, even as others ; that at that time ye were without 
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no 
hope, and without God in the world." 

Fifth : We shall invite attention to the several ways 
in which this depravity of human nature is evinced. 1st. 
This depravity is evinced in opposition and contradic- 
tion to God, Job xxi, 14, " Depart from us, for we 
desire not the knowledge of thy ways." Ps. xxxvi, 1, 
" The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, 
there is no fear of God before his eyes." John vii, 7, 
u The world can not hate you, but me it hateth, because 
I testify of it that the works thereof are evil." Eom. i, 
30, " Haters of God." Eom. viii, 7, " Because the car- 
nal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can be." 

Sixth : This depravity is manifested in disobedience 
and insubordination to the authority of God. Job xxi, 

15, " What is the Almighty that we should serve him ?" 
Ps. ii, 3, " Let us break their bands asunder, and cast 
away their cords from us." Jer. v, 23, " This people 
hath a revolting, and a rebellious heart, they are revolted 
and gone." Zach. vii, 11, 12, " But they refused to 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 365 

hearken, and pulled away their shoulder, and stopped 
their ears that they should not hear ; yea, they made 
their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear 
the law, and the words which the Lord hath sent in his 
spirit by the former prophets." Ps. x, 4, "The wicked, 
through the pride of his countenance, will not seek for 
God, God is not in all his thoughts." Is. xxix, 15, " Woe 
unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the 
Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, 
who seeth us, and who knoweth us?" Eph. v, 11, 12, 
" The unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove 
them ; for it is a shame even to speak of those things 
which are done of them in secret." Eph. ii, 3, "Among 
whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in 
the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh 
and mind, and were bv nature the children of wrath even 
as others." 

Titus iii, 3, " For we ourselves also were sometimes 
foolish, disobedient, deceived ; serving divers lusts and 
pleasures ; living in malice and envy, hateful and hating 
one another." 

Seventh: This depravity is also shovm in acts of 
hase ingratitude and cruelty. Psalms xli, 9, " Tea, 
mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did 
eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." 
Psalms lxxiv, 20, "Have respect unto the Covenant, for 
the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of 
cruelty." Isaiah i, 2, " Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O 
earth, for the Lord hath spoken : I have nourished and 
brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." 

We remark that this depravity is developed in deceit 
and hypocrisy. 

Jeremiah xvii, 9, " The heart is deceitful above all 
things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" 
Eomans i, 29, 30, "Being filled with all unrighteousness, 
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full 
of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 
backbiters." 



866 DISCUSSION ON 

Eighth : We now invite attention to the consideration 
that persons are responsible for actual sins only ; sins 
of their own, not of others. Deuteronomy xxiv, 10, 
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers / 
every man shall be put to death for his own sin." 
Ezekiel xviii, 2, " What mean ye that ye use this proverb 
concerning the land of Israel, saying the fathers have 
eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on 
edge ?" Twentieth verse, " The soul that sinneth it shall 
die ; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father ; 
neither shall the father bear iniquity for the son. The 
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him ; and 
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Jer. 
xxxi, 30, " Every one shall die for his own iniquity ; 
every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be 
set on edge : they are only responsible for actual sins ; yet 
this inclination to evil and corruption, is early mani- 
fested in the life." Job xi, 12, " For vain man would 
be w T ise, though man be born like a wild ass or colt. 
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not 
one." Job xv, 14, " What is man that he should be 
clean ? and he that is born of a woman, that he should 
be righteous ?" Psalm li, 5, "Behold I was shapen in 
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 
Iviii, 3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb ; they 
go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Pro- 
verbs xxii, 15, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of the 
child." Isaiah xlviii, 8, "I knew that thou didst deal 
very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from 
the womb." 

We now invite attention to some consequences which 
must necessarily result from the doctrine of partial de- 
pravity. 1. If any part of man is not in his fallen 
state depraved, that part stands in no need of redemption 
by Christ, and is not redeemed. This is a consequence 
necessarily following the doctrine of partial depravity. 

2. If that part of man's nature, in his fallen condition, 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 367 

not depraved, obtains heaven, it obtains it of right, and 
not by the atonement made by our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
it obtains it upon the ground of the maintenance of 
innocence in the sight of God, and is not dependent upon 
what Christ has done for it. I shall leave my opponent 
to point out what special part of human nature, in its 
fallen condition, is not depraved, what part does not 
stand in need of the redeeming efficacy of Christ's 
blood. 

3. There is another circumstance following this doc- 
trine, if on such ground it enters heaven, whether soul or 
body, or part of both, it can not take part in the song of 
those who have washed their robes in the blood of the 
Lamb: there would be a discordant song — the whole 
man could not unite in that song. If the soul is not de- 
praved as a consequence of sin, or if the body be not 
depraved, or if a portion of either be not depraved, there 
can be no praise to him, who has not washed them in 
his blood. This we regard as conclusively disproving the 
doctrine of partial depravity. There are other Scriptural 
evidences, bearing upon this subject, of entire depravity 
of the human nature. 

Now, when all have fully before them the subject we 
are discussing, we shall read the definition of the word 
depravity from Webster: "Depravity, a vitiated state 
of the heart, corruption of moral principles, destitution 
of moral principles." He defines depravity to be a 
vitiated state of the heart, corruption of moral principles, 
destitution of holiness, or good principles. Here, then, 
you will discover the ground of difference that exists 
between me and my opponent, in the investigation of 
this subject ; we consider human nature in its fallen state, 
to be depraved — entirely so. The whole race of man, as 
a consequence of original transgression, is depraved in 
all its parts ; the relation of infants, however, is not the 
relation sustained by actual transgressors, though they 
inherit an entirely depraved nature, as the progeny of 
an entirely depraved parentage. Yet, infants are passive 



368 • DISCUSSION ON 

in the fall, and are passive in the redemption by Christ; 
they can not possibly be the subjects of law ; therefore, 
they are unconditionally saved in Jesus Christ. 

Komans iv, 15, " Where there is no law, there is no 
transgression." Romans v, 13, " For until the law, sin 
was in the world ; but sin is not imputed where there is 
no law." Again; "he reckoned all under sin, that he 
might have mercy on all." In this state, infancy stands 
justified by an act of God. The infant in Jesus Christ 
is redeemed, and can not be considered as guilty before 
God. It was from this fact that Jesus Christ made an 
example of infant children, when he took them in his 
arms and blessed them ; and when he took a little child 
and placed it in the midst, and said, u Except a man be 
converted, and become as a little child, he can not see 
the kingdom of God." 

What, then, is it that entirely depraves human nature ? 
It is sin — the violation of God's law. A single voluntary 
transgression committed, taints, corrupts, pollutes, de- 
praves human nature, in all its parts, and, of course, 
covers the whole ground, and entirely depraves all his 
nature. This sin is represented, in some passages I 
have quoted, as possessing a most deadly character; the 
poison of asps is under their lips. You may take a glass 
of water — pure sparkling water — and just drop a single 
grain of arsenic into that water, and what part is not 
corrupt and depraved ? The very thing is poison. By 
a chemical analysis this poisonous substance may be 
extracted, yet there is no evidence but that, in the de- 
praved condition, it was depraved in all its parts ; the 
poison was equally diffused in every particle of that glass 
of water. If sin l?e poison, it diffuses itself through the 
whole man. 

Here, then, the position is clearly maintained : 

First, That human nature is fallen in its original head: 

Second, That it fell from grace in this condition, prior 

to the promise made: Gen. iii, 15, "And I will put 

enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 369 

seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel." 

What was the condition of man, in his original state ? 
Was it a state of condemnation ? Had he not violated 
the law to which he was held responsible ? Did he not 
rest under the sentence of condemnation ? Did he not 
die in the very period of eating thereof? For God de- 
clared, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely 
die." 

This death, Adam experienced in the separation of 
God from his soul. That separation took place immedi- 
ately on his transgression ; the evidence of it, we have in 
his conduct in attempting to conceal himself in the trees 
of the garden. He felt himself to be a guilty rebel in the 
sight of heaven. A greater evidence of deep depravity, 
aiad of a want of consciousness of grace, or favor, than 
nis desire to hide from the Almighty, could not be. It 
s well known, that when fear exists, there is no disposi- 
tion to avoid the presence of those for whom friendship 
is entertained. But Adam knew he had violated the law 
of God, and hence, that God whom he had recognized as 
nis God — a God of infinite love, and who communed 
with him, had now become to him an object of terror, 
and he hides himself as one fleeing from the hand of an 
enemy. 

He was lord of the lower creation, and sat at the head of 
God's creatures, and was in rank and dignity made a little 
lower than the angels. Now, the crown had fallen from 
his head, the glory had departed, and we contemplate 
him in his eclipsed glory ; the sunlight of heaven was 
withdrawn, and the darkness of moral night 'had fallen 
upon him, and he was induced to flee from the sight of 
Jehovah. For it is a natural result, invariably, that 
wherein appears a natural likeness to another object, it will 
seek affinity, or association with it, and shun its opposite ; 
and it is particularly so in a moral sense. God was pre- 
viously the source of his delight — now he is the source of 
his dread ; formerly the source of his enjoyment — now the 



370 DISCUSSION ON 

source of his anguish. He felt it was against God'he had 
sinned, and must have realized the force of the sentiment, 
"Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned." In this 
condition, we must consider him as fallen from grace, 
but he was redeemed, prospectively, and the merit of 
redemption was to be received, on the condition of looking 
forward to its fulfillment by faith. You will perceive, that 
it has been my purpose to approach the subject directly, 
and no one will presume to question, that I have taken 
the position upon the merits of the subject involved, and 
have presented passages, chapter, and verse, calculated 
to sustain the several positions assumed. My position is 
sustained by the most learned and respectable authors in 
Christendom, that the consequence of the fall and trans- 
gression of man is, that humanity, in its fallen condition, 
is entirely depraved ; it is so with regard to all persons, 
as actual transgressors ; it is applicable to every individ- 
ual, where a sin is committed against God iqtentionally. 

Me Summerbell's First reply and Twenty-fifth speech : 

I am very much pleased with my brother's speech, the 
most of which I believe as firmly as he. I hope that he 
will be as well pleased with mine. His argument on the 
tumbler of water, was very well done. The water was 
all tainted ; hut its nature ivas not destroyed ! The 
poison could be extracted by the chemist, and the water 
would remain in its original nature. The mixture of one 
thing with another, does not irrecoverably destroy the 
nature of the thing so compounded. As far as sin 
goes, it pollutes our nature ; no farther. He says that 
God said to Adam, u In the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die, 55 and that Adam lost the image of 
God, and died a moral death that day. I think not. If 
he refers to the marginal reading, he will find it ren- 
dered, "dying thou shalt die" as it is in the original, 
man mo, muth temuth. I deny that humanity became 
totally depraved in its nature, and lost the image of God 
there. James says, iii, 9, (and James is good authority,) 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 371 

"The tongue is an unruly evil, therewith bless we God, 
even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which 
are made after the similitude of GodP Now, is James, 
or my brother, right ? He thinks that one transgression 
will make a man totally depraved. Then, you are all 
totally depraved, here, this morning, and there is nothing 
good about you. For this total depravity includes the 
whole nature. No matter when you were converted, if 
you have committed any sin since, you are now totally 
depraved, and can do no good thing, for like begets like. 
Such is my brother's argument, that the commission of 
a sin, however small, renders you totally depraved in 
your nature — as depraved as Satan ! It is getting very 
late in the day to make people believe this. He speaks 
of humanity in its redeemed condition ; but is man, in 
this condition, more innocent than when he was an infant 
babe ? Jesus says, " Except a man be converted, and 
become as a little child, he shall not enter into the king- 
dom of heaven." Yet, my brother thinks that the infant 
is totally depraved in its nature. 

He says, that he believes in the salvation of infants ; 
but upon what ground, if he deny their innocence ? There 
is no promise, or hope, held out in the Bible, which is not 
predicated upon their innocence. Jesus says, " Suffer 
little children to come unto me, for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven." What ! totally depraved persons in 
the kingdom of heaven ? 

I am asked what part of human nature is not totally 
depraved. I answer, no part is ! Reason still exists in 
man ; love, natural affection, and desires for good are 
there. He says, if there is any part of our nature that is 
not totally depraved, then we cannot experience salva- 
tion in Christ. But I think that Christ saves us ; if he 
saves us from whatever depravity or malady we have. 
If Christ heals a man of that disease which he has, he 
saves the man. It is not necessary that ever} 7 person 
should have totally perished, in order to experience sal- 
vation. 



372 DISCUSSION ON 

He thinks that man is totally depraved, because the 
wicked, through the depravity of their hearts, will not 
seek after God ; yet, they are commanded by the Word 
of God, to seek after God. And, though iar too few 
do seek after God, yet does not my brother preach to 
them, and appeal to them, as though he thought there 
was something left not totally depraved, either in the 
heart, or mind, to which he could appeal ? If my bro- 
ther thought that there was nothing good in humanity, 
no good soil in the heart, would he think it worth while 
to preach to sinners. Could the " seed fall into good 
ground" if there were no "good ground?" If there be 
no congenial soil, our farmer friends know very well that 
their seed will not grow ; but there is that in the heart 
of man, which responds to the appeal from the Word of 
God — a conscience which, though depraved, is not totally 
depraved ; for the spirit of God finds a response there. 
My brother confounds general depravity, in which we 
are agreed, with total depravity, on which we differ. He 
quotes, " I have nourished, and brought up children, and 
they have rebelled against me ;" but this can not mean 
that they were put off at an infinite distance from God 
in Adam. No, they are children, who have gone astray 
like the prodigal son, not born astray. He says that we 
are only responsible for our own sins, and quotes Ezekiel 
to prove it ; but that is on my side of the question, so 
that it is soon answered. 

He says that this depravity evinces itself in a hatred 
of God. Very true, the Scriptures constantly teach that 
man is depraved. He quotes Romans viii, 7, " The carnal 
mind is enmity against God." This is true, but the car- 
nal mind here is not what he makes it ; but the minding 
of the things of the flesh. He says, that depravity is 
evidenced by forgetfulness of God. That is true; but it 
is not to the, question. We both hold that man is de- 
praved/ He quotes Jeremiah : "This people will revolt 
more and more ;" but according to my brother, they can 
not — they can not become more and more depraved, for 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 373 

they were totally depraved at the start — their hearts 
were all made totally alien from God at the beginning ; 
hence, they can not revolt more and more. My brother 
should not quote such texts ; they are not on his side, for 
they are true. He quotes Ps. xiv, 3, " There is ndne 
that doeth God," to prove that all mankind are totally 
depraved by nature ; but this is spoken of the wicked, 
and not of the righteous. In the fourth verse, God says : 
" Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who 
eat up my people, as they eat bread," &c. So that God's 
people are not included among those who do not good. 
He next quotes Rom. vii, 18, " In my flesh dwelleth no 
good thing." That is the reason why Paul " kept Ms 
body under" Paul was a converted man, but the flesh 
warred against the spirit ; this flesh will go down to cor- 
ruption ; but by and by, we shall have a spiritual body, 
which will act in harmony with the spirit. The flesh is 
not the man ; but the spirit is the man, and the body, 
the house we live in. My brother is to prove, not that 
we are depraved, or all depraved ; we agree on that ; but 
that all mankind are, by nature, totally depraved — that 
there is no good thing in us at all ; being, by natural 
generation just as bad as we can be, — that as the enemy 
of souls is only totally depraved, as he is, even so are we. 
He quotes Gen. iii, 17, that man " is to return to the 
dust ;" but this does not prove that his nature is totally 
depraved. And Job xv, 16, " Man drinketh in ini- 
quity ;" but this does not prove that he was full, totally 
depraved at birth, for then he would hold no more. 
Col. iii, 21, "That all are concluded under sin," shows 
that God did not consider all totally depraved. "To fear 
God," because we have sinned against him, is no proof 
of total depravity by nature, for the least sinful have the 
deepest sense of guilt, often. My brother does not con- 
sider the question ; but reads from the Scripture Manual, 
in the order there laid down, without reference to the 
appropriateness of the application. Is. i, 2, "I have 
nourished, and brought up children, and they have 



374 DISCUSSION ON 

rebelled," proves that we were God's children, and not 
totally depraved in infancy. Job v, 15, " What is man, 
that he should be clean," might be applicable, if I con- 
tended, that all men are holy. Why does my brother 
quote these texts? Concerning the song that infants 
sing in heaven, I refer my brother to Rev. xiv, 3, " And 
they sang, as it were, a new song before the throne, and 
before the four beasts, and the elders : and no man could 
learn that song, but the hundred and forty and four 
thousand, which were redeemed from the earth." He, 
would have infants sing " Unto him, that hath redeemed 
us from Adam's sin." 

Again, Job xxxxii, 7, " Children that are corrupters, 
they have forsaken the Lord, they are gone away back- 
ward." Here we see that they were not born totally de- 
praved ; but that they turned away voluntarily. It has 
ever been so. I will read Clarke on this passage: " They 
have turned their backs upon him, so Kinchi explains it ; 
they have turned unto him the back, and not the face. 
See Jer. ii, 27, and vii, 24. I have been forced to ren- 
der this passage paraphretically, as a verbal translation, 
they are estranged backward, would have been unintel- 
ligible." — Clarke on Job xi, 7. 

So far from considering righteousness contrary to our 
nature, the fathers (see Neander ii, 561), could say: 
" What is easier, what lighter burden is there than this ; 
to take delight in abstaining from sin, in willing w r hat 
is good, in hating none," etc. Such were the views of 
Hilary, " who quotes Ps. lviii, 5, to show that sin can not 
be considered as anything innate, but must be referred to 
a guilty hardening of the will." P. 562. "Sin not 
innate" That is, not our nature, but the mortal enemy 
of our nature. My brother quotes Rom. iv, 15, "Where 
there is no law, there is no transgression." To which I 
answer ; then there is no sin ; for " sin is a transgression 
of the law." The putting enmity between the woman and 
the serpent, Gen. iii, 5, rather proves an enmity of 
evil, and hence, an absence of total natural depravity. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY, 375 

He quotes Gen. vi, 5, " God saw that the wickedness of 
man was great on the earth, and that every imagination 
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,' 5 
&c. Now, nothing is here said of the nature of man, 
but of his practice, and it is fully explained in Ecclesiastes 
vii, 29, " God made man upright, but they have sought 
out many inventions," and this, is confirmed by Gen. vi, 
12, "All flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth," 
not that Adam had corrupted the nature of all flesh with 
total depravity ; but the charge is against all ; yet, to this 
all, there are some noble exceptions, and during the fif- 
teen hundred years that man had existed on the earth, 
some had shone as lights in the earth, relieving the 
darkness of the universal gloom. There was a righteous 
Abel. Enoch walked with God, and Noah was a right- 
eous man. These were types of piety, and with many 
others, no doubt, children ; yea, sons of God, amid the 
general alienation. 

Also, it is to be considered, that had the great moral 
evil laid in our nature, the remedy would have been 
applied there, and not to the outward boughs of the tree ; 
not to the fruit. In consequence of the great wicked- 
ness of man, God determined to destroy the world by a 
flood, with the exception of one family ; but this could in 
nowise remove the difficulty, if the evil lay in the nature, 
since that family preserved the nature, which proves 
that God did not regard the evil as in nature, but in 
practice. 

He quotes Job xxii, 5, "Is not thy wickedness great, 
and thine iniquities infinite ? " this is not the language of 
pious Job, but of Eliphaz, one of his three friends, of 
whom God said, "they have not spoken the thing that is 
right concerning me, as my servant, Job, hath." That 
sin is not infinite, is proved, for where " sin abounded, 
grace did much more abound ;" but nothing can exceed 
infinity. Also, in this text nothing is said of our nature. 

Isa. i, 4, 5, 6, speaks of the great wickedness of the 
Israelites ; calls them a sinful nation, a people laden 



376 DISCUSSION ON 

with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are cor- 
rupters, who have forsaken the Lord — gone away back- 
ward, and says, "Why should you be stricken any more, 
ye will revolt more and more : the whole head is sick, 
and the whole heart faint ; from the sole of the foot, even 
unto the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds, 
and bruises, and putrefying sores ; they have not been 
closed, neither bound up," &c. This is not speaking of 
the sins of individuals, but of national crimes ; Clarke 
says, " There are some who explain it thus : ' upon what 
limb shall you be smitten, if you had defection ; for 
already, for your sins, have you been smitten upon all of 
them ; so that there is not to be found in you a whole 
limb on which you can be smitten. 5 " — Clarke, Isa. i, 5, 6. 
Which agrees with verse 7, " Your country is desolate, 
your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers 
devour in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown 
by strangers." 

Still God, in speaking of that very nation, see 
Jer. ii, 21, says, " Yet I had planted thee a noble 
vine, wholly a right seed, how then art thou become 
the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me." The 
fault was not in their nature, but in their practice ; they 
were evil-doers who had forsaken the Lord, and gone 
away backward. The loathsome description of their 
wounds and bruises, referred to their calamities, and the 
head sick and heart faint, represented that the king, the 
head of, and the priest, the heart of the body politic and 
religious, were also corrupt ; and in this explanation, 
Clarke, my brother's own authority, agrees. See also 
verses 7 and 8. 

Jer. xvii, 5, " The heart is deceitful above all things, 
and desperately wicked." This says nothing of our na- 
ture, and though in itself too true, yet is not a correct 
translation. Instead of desperately wicked, the original 
signifies weak, feeble, wretched, as witnessed by Clarke. 

Clarke, Jer. xvii, 9, " The heart is deceitful above all 
things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 377 

Desperately wicked, ve anash hu, and is wretched 
or feeble, distressed beyond all things, in consequence of 
the wickedness that is in it. I am quite of Mr. Park- 
hurst's opinion, that this word is badly translated, as 
anash is never used in Scripture to denote wickedness 
of any kind." The meaning is nearer akin to the words 
of Christ concerning the three sleeping disciples in the 
garden, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 

Ps. li, 5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in 
sin did my mother conceive me." This is a part of the 
language of deep humility in the confession of a prayer, 
and is no more to be understood literally, than the words, 
" I am a worm, and no man." — Ps. xxii, 6. Shapen, 
in the above text, is from the Hebrew cholaleti, and 
signifies brought forth, while yechematen signifies made 
me warm ; see Clarke. A critical examination of the 
passage shows it to have been an humble confession that 
he sprang from a wicked parentage ; but says not one 
word either of the partial or total depravity of nature. 
The passage, Ps. lviii, 3, " The wicked go astray as soon 
as they are born, speaking lies," proves that our wick- 
edness lies not in our nature, but practice. It would be 
hard for those to GO ASTRAY who were born TO- 
TALLY DEPRAYED. But this text is referred to by 
Hilary, an orthodox father, who applies it to " a guilty 
hardening of the will : but never recognises man as hav- 
ing lost the divine image." " All moral evil, however, 
Hilary seems to refer to the sensuous nature, while in 
the soul, he recognizes the indestructible image of God. 
Thus the contrariety betwixt the inner and outer man, is 
to him no other than that betwixt spirit and sense." 
Neander, Yol. ii, pp. 559—562. 

Hilary is one of the most orthodox fathers of the 
fourth century, and his views were the views of the 
Church at that period : but how widely different from 
my brother, you may judge by the following : " Those 
who painfully struggle along," says he, " under the diffi- 
culties of the law, and those who are burdened with the 
32 



378 DISCUSSION ON 

sins of the world, Christ calls to himself, and he promises 
to make the way easy and their burden light, if they will 
but take his yoke upon them, that is, subject themselves 
to his commands, and come to him under the holy sacra- 
ment of the cross, because he is meek and lowly of heart, 
and they shall therein (by submitting to his commands,) 
find rest to their souls, holding out the allurement of an 
easy yoke and a light burden, that he may bestow on 
those who believe on him, the knowledge of the true 
good, and what lighter burden is there than this, to take 
delight in abstaining from sin, in willing what is good, 
in loving all men, in hating none, in attaining to things 
that are eternal, in not being carried away by things 
present and temporal, in being unwilling to do to others 
what you would not choose to suffer yourself." — Nean- 
der, Vol. ii, 561. 

Here the gospel is spoken of as being in accordance 
with our nature, and that which we need to make us 
happy. 

Ps. xxii, 10, David declares that God was his God 
from the very beginning of his existence, which could 
not have been the case if he was born totally depraved. 

Before further examining texts upon the subject, I will 
now present you with some philosophical, and some 
Biblical arguments against the doctrine of total depravity. 

1st. We have no proof, whatever, that Adam fell into 
a state of total depravity ; and it is wrong to accuse 
him of it without proof. 

2d. There is neither Scripture, reason, nor philosophy, 
for the opinion that one sin will cause all nature to be- 
come totally depraved ; just as well might we say that 
one good deed would regenerate and sanctify our natures 
through all succeeding generations. We have no proof 
that Adam fell from the grace of God. God was his 
father by creation, and followed him with his love even 
after he had sinned ; and notwithstanding Adam's fear 
of him, yet God spoke to him words of love, and prom- 
ised him" a Saviour to redeem him and all his posterity ; 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 379 

so that he had not fallen from God's grace. I know that 
it is a popular doctrine ; but how could we be saved if 
fallen from God's grace ? Could we be restored to grace 
without grace ? It is a mistake that the image of 
God, in which man was created, was the moral image. 
God created man in his own image, previous to the 
existence of any mental or moral faculties in man — pre- 
vious to his having life. He afterward breathed into 
him the breath of life, and he became a living soul. 

3d. Abel being good, is as good proof of the perfect 
holiness of nature, as Cain's sin is of its total depravity. 
Were that doctrine true, hate would everywhere take the 
place of love, and there would be no good feeling left in 
the world. Our conscience would approve of all wrong, 
and peace of mind would be the consequence of sin. It 
can not be that children are born totally depraved. We 
all feel that they are innocent of crime. It is the pure 
outflowing from the heart in words, of the consciousness 
of their innocence, which maizes mothers so often ex- 
claim, " If children are not saved, then who will be ? " 
Mothers feel this ; fathers feel it. Why, but because 
they are innocent ? If yon convince those fathers, those 
mothers, that they are totally depraved — little fiends — as 
poison as rattlesnakes — the argument for their salvation 
is lost. 

4th. There is no proof that Adam's children were born 
totally depraved. That is a forced and unnatural con- 
struction of the text, which applies, " begat a son in his 
own image," to the internal nature of the child. Image 
refers not to character, but likeness. The words " I have 
gotten a man from the Lord," are better proof of the 
purity of nature. 

5th. If our nature were totally depraved, man would 
develop himself best, and improve most in sin ; because 
everything thrives best in its own natural element ; but 
facts contradict this hypothesis. 

6th. That children sin, is no more proof that they are 
totally depraved, than that they do good is, that they are 



380 DISCUSSION ON 

perfectly righteous. 2 Pet. ii, 4, "Angels sinned ; " and 
yet no one will say that they were created totally depraved. 

7th. A child's sinning soon, is no proof that it is 
totally depraved ; for Adam sinned soon, though he was 
not created totally depraved. 

8th. If all were totally depraved, then their nature 
would be so contrary to the Gospel, that Gospel seed 
would find no congenial soil — no good ground ; and the 
farmer well knows, that he not only requires good seed, 
but a congenial soil to raise good fruit. 

9th. If our natures were totally depraved, and we were 
inclined to evil naturally, as the " sparks fly upward," 
then we would sin just as unremittingly as the sparks 
fly upward ; all this congregation would immediately 
commence cursing, blaspheming, and sinning in every 
way, just as truly as the sparks fly upward. 

10th. If we were totally depraved by nature, then 
mothers would naturally hate their children ; since 
mother and child would li>th be totally depraved. Hence, 
mothers would all destroy their children ; also children 
their parents ; brothers would hate their sisters, and sis- 
ters would hate their brothers. 

11th. Then hate, fierce and sanguinary, would uni- 
versally take the place of love. 

12th. Then sin of all kinds, would cause great peace 
of mind, since it would be in accordance with our nature, 
and nature would find rest in sin. For as we see the lion, 
wolf, tiger, &c, are only happy when developing their na- 
ture unrestrained; so we would only be happy in sin. 

13th. If we are born totally depraved, then there is no 
hope for children dying before repentance ; since the as- 
surance of their salvation is everywhere predicated upon 
their innocence. Matt, xviii, 3, " Jesus said, Suffer little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of 
such (not totally depraved) of such is the kingdom of 
heaven. I challenge my brother to produce one text, 
which promises salvation to totally depraved little child- 
ren dying without repentance or faith. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 381 

14th. If children are not totally depraved by nature, 
then none of us are, for we were all once children. 

15th. But if children are born totally depraved, then 
they can not go astray, since they are entirely astray in 
the start. 

16th. The text, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive," is no promise of salvation from 
total depravity to children, since it is a physical death 
and resurrection of which the apostle is treating. 

17th. We have many exceptions to general and ex- 
treme depravity, both in and out of the church. We 
often find heavenly virtues cultivated in the lives of un- 
regenerate men ; and the Bible, so far from teaching that 
those virtues are sinful, teaches the contrary; and presents 
us with such virtuous characters, out of any visible 
Church organization, as Melchizedec, Job, and the good 
Samaritan, by which characters, such views are proved 
untrue. Bom. iii, 10, " There is none righteous," &c, 
is explained to mean a certain class, viz : the wicked, by 
the following sentence, " Have all the workers of iniquity 
no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread ?" 
Ps. xiv, 3. God's people did good. Eph. ii, 3, "Were 
by nature the children of wrath even as others," alludes 
not to our internal nature ; but as Dr. Macknight says 
on this text, " Nature often signifies one's birth or edu- 
cation; as Gal. ii, 15, ' We who are Jews by nature; 3 
also natural reason and conscience, as Bom. ii, 14, 'The 
Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things 
of the law.' Also, the general sense and practice of 
mankind, 1 Cor. xi, 14, 4 Doth not even nature itself 
teach you, that if a man wear long hair,' &c. In the 
passage under consideration, nature is that second cor- 
rupt, dead nature, which men form in themselves by 
habitually indulging vicious inclinations ; for the apostle 
speaks of men being by nature the children of wrath, 
as the effect of their having their conversation in the 
lusts of the flesh. Children of wrath is a Hebraism 
signifying, liable to wrath." — Macknight on Eph. ii, 3. 



382 DISCUSSION ON 

Mr. Flood's Second address, and Twenty-sixth speech : 
My first business will be to review my brother in his 
response to my argument. He expresses himself as 
highly gratified with the course I pursued .; and he hopes 
his opponent may be equally gratified. He first refers to 
the tumbler — until separated, the water remains entirely 
depraved. My brother stated the great argument to be 
the total, hereditary depravity of human nature. Neither 
word occurs in the proposition — neither total nor heredi- 
tary. He is fruitful in discoveries ; it would be very 
convenient for him to change the terms ; if he could, 
he would now mystify the matter. I have read Webster's 
definition and would have you keep it before you. 

I have never once employed the word total in the dis- 
cussion of this subject ; it is a word of my brother's, 
although he professes to favor Scripture phraseology ; 
but he should stick to the proposition submitted for dis- 
cussion. I admit that human nature, in its fallen and 
depraved condition, is capable of being restored and 
sanctified ; in which state it enjoys communion with God, 
in its fullness and glory ; every stage of which process of 
salvation, is accomplished through the merit and atone- 
ment of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether applied to human 
nature, in its passive condition, receiving the passive 
benefit of Christ's atonement, or receiving the merit of 
his atonement for sins actually committed, it opens a 
door of hope to the perishing and lost, and invites them 
to come to God by Jesus Christ. 

By what law shall man be justified — the law of works ? 
No ! but the law of faith. So that faith in the atone- 
ment of Jesus Christ, restores him to the condition in 
which he stood before the fall of Adam. My opponent 
denies that the fall of Adam included a moral death. I 
do not wonder at Mr. Summerbell being claimed by 
Universalists. The Universalists will be found with 
him here, in denying that a moral death is implied ; 
that though he broke the only law given him in a state 
of innocence, he does not morally die ; and though he 



ITUMAN DEPRAVITY. 383 

has transgressed, yet he is still spiritually alive in the 
sight of God. Ballon, Balfour, Rogers, and a host of 
others, advocate the same position precisely, that the 
soul, or spirit, was not depraved in consequence of the 
fall, but is still pure in the sight of God. My brother 
asks, is a man, after his conversion, as good as an infant ? 
Jesus Christ said, " Except a man be converted and be- 
come as a little child, he can not enter the kingdom of 
heaven." After conversion, he is justified by virtue of 
what Christ has done for him, through the redemption that 
is in Christ Jesus. Hence, he assumes the same justified 
relation that the infant does in the sight of God. Child- 
ren, he exclaims, totally depraved ! Who ever asserted 
it ? Children share the benefit of Christ's death, as they 
fell passively in their federal head, so are they redeemed 
passively by Jesus Christ. 

I suppose Mr. Summerbell will understand this posi- 
tion. He desired me to invert the language of our Sa- 
viour. That would be insulting to Jehovah, who has never 
uttered such a sentiment in any portion of his Word. 
He says there is a conscience in the wicked that may be 
touched ; and from this he supposed they are not entirely 
depraved. Now, I read of a conscience that is seared as 
with a hot iron, and one that is become so lost to a 
sense of its obligations, that it is invulnerable, even to 
things of divine truth. That is the state of the wicked ; 
they are always represented as dead. The Scriptures 
say, arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 
But how, by natural strength, by being possessed of a 
power that is not naturally depraved, exerting that natural 
power and arising from the dead ? 

This figure of speech is employed to represent the con- 
dition of the wicked, and but very poorly represents the 
idea of partial depravity. " The carnal mind is enmity 
with God." The carnal mind is enmity, and, of course, 
in hostility against God ; it is arrayed against God with 
all the energy it possesses. 

"If we are totally depraved in the start, we never 



384 DISCUSSION ON 

could become worse." Here is the word total again. I 
notice it in every single case. Who used the word total ? 
I assumed that human nature was depraved in all its 
parts, thoroughly and entirely depraved by sin ; the 
transgression of a single law of God, polluted and cor- 
ruptee! the whole man. There has no part escaped the 
contagion of sin — it spread through man's whole body ; 
" but he would not, then, become worse and worse." I 
have never yet asserted it. u In my flesh," according to 
the language of Paul, "there is no good thing." My 
brother says, " Paul does not intimate that in his spirit 
there is no good thing." If he intimates that in his 
fallen condition there is no good thing, then, in the spirit, 
there is some good thing — that it is the soul or spirit that 
is not depraved. 

Does he assume this is Paul's converted condition ? 
He was as other converted men in proportion to his 
attainment in moral virtue. How was he righteous ? 
By the deeds of the law, or belief in the promise made, 
" That the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
head ?" Was it by a passive obedience, or was he justi- 
fied as other sinners, through faith in the promised Mes- 
siah ? He refers to the quotation made from Job, and 
says it is not inspired ; I leave you to consider this shift. 
He then quotes JVeander^ and defines the term guilty. 
That sounds very much like that, when a man is guilty, 
and hardening his heart, he must be very much depraved; 
as soon as the Bible fails, he appeals to Neander. 

If children are entirely depraved, they go astray as soon 
as they are born. There is a real disposition to evil. It 
grows out of the fact of the children inheriting the fallen 
nature of the parents ; but the infant never becomes culpa- 
ble before God, until it actually and knowingly transgresses 
the law of God. We have proof that children are born in 
a depraved state, but not in a state of guilt. Genesis iv, 
9, 10, " And the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel, thy 
brother ? And he said, I know not : am I my brother's 
keeper ? And he said. What hast thou done % the voice 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 385 

of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from tne ground." 
How, was Abel justified by faith ? 

Hebrews xi, 4, "By faith Abel offered unto God a 
more excellent sacrifice than Cain's, by which he obtained 
witness that he was righteous : God justifying his gifts, 
and by it he being dead, yet speaketh." Here we have 
the ground of AbePs standing justified in the sight 
of God, that he had faith. When he came to offer 
his sacrifice, he brought the firstlings of his flock, and 
these were types like unto the great sacrifice that should 
be made and offered for sin. Hence, Abel was justified 
in the sight of God ; and though thousands of years have 
passed away, man is justified by faith in the Messiah still. 

Cain brought the fruits of the ground — his offering 
was not calculated, in its nature, to indicate faith in the 
promised Messiah, and this induced Cain to envy the 
better condition of his brother ; and when they were 
alone in the field, he rose up against him, and slew T him. 
Rather an unfortunate matter for my brother to refer to. 
First, an act of murder, perpetrated by a brother upon 
the person of a brother ; and then the manifestation of 
hypocrisy. This depravity produced a falsehood; he 
said, I know not ; but he knew well. He showed indif- 
ference for his brother's welfare ; and he inquired, im- 
pudently addressing himself thus to his Creator, " Am 
I my brother's keeper V 3 But God said, " What hast 
thou done ? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto 
me from the ground." The baseness of thy heart is 
opened and exposed to my view ; the deep, dark, and 
horrible secrets of wickedness, that dwell within thj 
heart, are all exposed to view ; the murderous impulses 
of soul that prompted thee to the destruction of thy bro- 
ther, are all before me, and I hold thee to a strict 
accountability. 

My brother said, that Adam's children were not born 

totally depraved. We have never asserted once that they 

were born totally depraved ; this is the language of my 

friend ; he may use it, but I shall adhere closely to the 

33 



886 DISCUSSION ON 

proposition, to the close of the subject, this afternoon. 
Irrelevant matter (except so far as I may be drawn aside 
by my brother,) will not be found to have a place in this 
argument. 

He says that if man is by nature inclined to evil, he 
will improve the more by continuing in wickedness. Tins 
is my friend's theology. I do not wish to lather it. He 
may nurture it at his leisure. I have assumed no such 
condition. 

Mr. Summerbell's Second reply and Twenty-sixth speech: 
Kind Friends — My brother's position, that children are 
sinners, is contrary to Paul, who says, Rom. ix, 11, 
at birth — "the children being not yet born, neither having 
done any good or evil" He charges me with saying, 
that if they are totally depraved they had better continue 
in sin. I said no such thing ; but that if their argument 
be true, they would thrive better in sin than in righteous- 
ness. If you take a bird out of the air and confine it to 
the water, you will destroy it, because you violate its 
nature. 

If you take a fish out of the water, you destroy it, 
because you remove it from its natural element. No 
principle is capable of clearer philosophical demonstra- 
tion than this : that everything thrives best in its natural 
element. Thus, if you take a tree from its natural soil, 
even on the barren heath, and plant it in the rich alluvial 
soil, or even gold dust, — will it thrive ? Everything 
flourishes best in its own natural element. And since 
my brother makes man's nature totally depraved, he 
must fight the whole philosophy of nature, or admit 
that man will flourish best in sin ; but this is contrary to 
all observation and experience. Sin wars on our nature ; 
it hardens the heart, disturbs the mind, sears the con- 
science, is repugnant to the soul ; it is not in his upright 
way, but he falls into it ; it is not his nature, but a blot, 
a stain, a spot on his nature ; it destroys his nature, 
destroys his humanity, and finally destroys the man, body 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 38T 

and soul. My brother gravely objects to my use of the 
words, " totally depraved." I am here to discuss the 
question of "Total Depravity" If he does not believe 
that human nature is totally depraved, let him say so, 
and the discussion is ended. But I will not allow him to 
dodge the point. Totally, means entirely, or it means 
nothing. I am not here to argue that men are not de- 
praved. I believe that, and lament over it. But I con- 
tend, that however bad, they are not totally depraved 
by nature. Is not the doctrine of total depravity taught 
by the orthodox % Then, why try to avoid it ? He says, 
that the Universalists claim me. Very well, my friends, 
I am not at all concerned at that. I do not know, but 
what a Universalist may possibly be saved ! I have never 
studied their theory much, but 1 am not their judge. It 
is very easy for us to despise others, but the great thing 
is, to be sure that we are right ourselves. I remember 
our Saviour said, that it would be more tolerable in the 
day of judgment, for Sodom and Gomorrah, than for 
some who heard him and were accounted orthodox. If 
a Universalist said a word in my favor, I will warrant 
you, my brother would rather it had been said in his. 
He is troubled that they speak in my favor, but I can not 
help it ; things will go so. My brother objects to the 
word total, but he does not deny that children are entirely 
depraved. Now, let him convince the mother, if he can, 
that the smiling infant at her breast is a smiling fiend — 
entirely depraved and inclined to evil only, and that con- 
tinually ; that when it looks up to its mother, it is the 
look of a serpent ; that its smile is not the reflection 
of the sunlight of heaven, but the evidence of total 
depravity. 

Mr. Flood. — I do not feel disposed to sit here, and 
listen to these misrepresentations of my views. I have 
never once said that children were totally depraved. 

Mr. Summerbell. — Will you deny that they are ? 

Mr. Flood. — I do deny it. Children are not totally 
depraved. 



388 DISCUSSION ON 

Mr. Summerbell. — I do not know where the gentle- 
man is, and I do not believe that he himself knows. 

Mr. Flood. — I will not allow him to say, that I have 
asserted the total depravity of infants. 

Mr. Summerbell. — After I arrived here, my brother 
objected to the word totally, because, as he said, it was 
unpopular, but was willing to insert the word, entirely, 
which, he said, meant just the same thing. And the 
sentence included in the parentheses, was put in to suit 
him, as he would not consent to discuss the question 
without it. I expected some such squirming as this, 
when it came to the point. 

Mr. Flood. — I want no misrepresentation of my views. 

Mr. Summerbell. — Will the Moderators please to tell 
us the difference between totally and entirely ? 

Mr. Flood. — That is not the question. 

Moderators. — The Board wishes to understand what 
the point of difference is ? 

Mr. Flood. — I stated that infants, in their passive 
condition, stand justified in the sight of God, and sus- 
tain the same relation to Jesus Christ that older converts 
do. All actual sinners are depraved ; but children are 
not actual sinners, and therefore can not be entirely 
depraved. They are human nature fallen, but not 
totally depraved. 

Mr. Summerbell. — But if human nature is totally 
depraved, and this depravity is engendered by natural 
generation, as his Creed says, then it must exist in 
children before they are adults. 

Moderators. — We submit, that there seems on the 
very face of the proposition, an inconceivable difficulty. 
If we strike out the parentheses, we can decide ; but as it 
is, w T e can not. 

Mr. Flood. — The first part of the proposition, relates 
to the condition of man, during the time that elapsed 
from the fall to the promise of the Messiah. The second, 
to the condition of actual transgressors, whether they 
be entirely or partially depraved. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 389 

Mr. Summerbell. — [Reads from the Protestant Meth- 
odist Articles of Religion.] " Original sin standeth not 
in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly 
talk,) but is the corruption of the nature of every man, 
that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, 
whereby man is very far gone from original righteous- 
ness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that 
continually." Here it distinctly says, that man is, of his 
oion nature, inclined to evil, and that continually; and 
that this depravity is engendered of the offspring of 
Adam, and yet he denies the depravity of infants. 

Mr. Flood. — There is unfairness in this. 

Mr. Summerbell. — You said that you did, before 
this audience. 

Mr. Flood. — I stated that Adam, in his fall, prior to 
the promise of redemption, w T as in a state fallen from 
grace, and consequently that all actual transgressors of 
God's law are entirely depraved ; and that those inherit- 
ing a fallen nature, are inclined to evil, and that continu- 
ally. The inclination to evil, I admit ; but the guiltiness 
and entire depravity of infancy, I have never assumed, 
but precisely the opposite. 

Moderators. — The difficulty is, in understanding w T hat 
the disputants intended. Was it, that mankind, through 
the transgression of Adam, became entirely depraved ? 

Mr. Flood. — No sir ! I will admit of no such modi- 
fication. 

Mr. Summerbell. — I wish my brother would admit 
the word, total, and if he does not believe it, he may 
choose any other minister to discus§" it. A Presby- 
terian, or — 

Mr. Flood. — Yes ; you would like very well to get 
rid of me. 

Mr. Summerbell. — Not at all ; but that is the only 
question, and you admitted that totally and entirely 
meant the same. 

Mr. Flood. — My brother continues to put words into 
my mouth. 



390 DISCUSSION ON 

Moderators. — Will the speakers consent to this mod- 
ification ? 6 *Are mankind, through the transgression of 
Adam, up to the promise of the Messiah, entirely 
depraved ? " 

Mr. Summerbell. — When was that promise made ? 
My brother might say, that it was made in two hours, 
and so confine total depravity to that short period. I 
will consent to any modification that will leave a question 
between us. 

Mr. Flood. — Mv brother is fruitful in discoveries. I 
never before heard that any divine had fixed the period. 
Mr. Summerbell is willing to argue a false issue, if 
I am. 

Mr. Summerbell. — I am willing to prove yours a 
false issue. 

Mr. Flood. — That everv actual sinner violating the 
law of God, is entirely depraved ; that is a point no 
theologian is disposed to deny. (Reads the Article on 
Depravity from the Discipline.) I agree with this, and 
am willing to prove it true. I propose to accept the 
Article. 

Mr. Summerbell. — I refuse to do so, because the Ar- 
ticle does not say totally depraved ; but if he will admit 
that it means that, I will discuss it. I did not know that 
he had a secret design in changing the word totally to 
entirely. 

Mr. Flood. — He says he did not know I had a secret 
design in introducing the word entirely, instead of 
totally. I wish you to notice that he impugns my mo- 
tives. This is rot the first time he has uttered such 
insinuations ; but these lunges at a person's reputation, 
are most discreditable. 

Mr. Summerbell. — I can bring witnesses to prove, 
that he admitted that the words meant the same, when 
he inserted entirely. 

Moderators. — The conclusion the board has come 
to is, that the words in the parentheses do not alter the 
question. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 391 

Mr. Flood. — The board seems to have changed its 
ground. I suppose they intend to do what is right. One 
of them is on my side, and one on Mr. Summerbell's, 
the third one, I suppose — 

Mr. Summerbell. — As my brother does not seem to 
be satisfied with the decision, I am willing to leave it to 
a minister, whom I see in the congregation, who, I think, 
is a grammarian, and is on his side of the house, though 
I am not acquainted with him. 

Mr. Flood. — Who is lie ? 

Mr. Summerbell. — I do not know his name. 

Mr. Flood. — How do you know that he is on my side 
of the question ? 

Mr. Summerbell. — I do not; but I think he is, and 
if he is not, you may object to him when he arises. 

Mr. Flood. — Well, call upon him. 

.Mr. Summerbell then pointed out the Rev. Mr. , 

of the M. E. Church, who was immediately accepted by 
Mr. Flood, and the decision submitted to him by the 
Moderators. 

Rev. Mr. — — , (Reads the proposition.) I under- 
stand by the parenthesis here introduced, that man w T as 
depraved up to the time that redemption was promised 
by Jesus Christ, and that after this redemption was pro- 
mised by Christ, we no longer remain depraved, in the 
sense that we were depraved before that promise was 
made. I understand the term mankind, to refer to the 
whole of the human family, and that, therefore, all are 
depraved, and that infants, before they are regenerated, 
are depraved. I also understand the doctrine of the 
Article to be total depravity. I think that without this 
parenthesis, the proposition of the question will be pro- 
perly stated. "Mankind, through the transgression of 
Adam, are by nature, entirely depraved, and inclined 
to evil, and that continually P 

Mr. Summerbell. — My brother has acknowledged 
that he did mean entirely depraved, and that entirely 
means the same as totally. But he denies that children 



892 DISCUSSION ON 

are totally depraved ; but his discipline says, that entire 
depravity comes by generation / if so, they must be en- 
tirely depraved. He says that one transgression will 
make us totally depraved. If so, then, we are all totally 
depraved now, no matter when converted. If we w r ere 
totally depraved, we would hate our children, instead of 
loving them. Pouring poison into a tumbler of water, 
will not change the nature of the water ; but it is the 
nature of the water to purify itself from the poison, 
showing the poison to be contrary to its nature. So in 
conversion, we are purified from our sins ; but we still 
retain human nature. God so loved us even before con- 
verted, as to give his only begotten Son for our salvation ; 
but do you suppose that God could love us, if we were 
totally depraved, with no single good thing connected 
with us? What would there be to love, but total de- 
pravity — sin ? and God cannot look upon sin with the 
least degree of allowance. I know not, but that the rea- 
son why salvation is not provided for fallen angels, if it 
be not, is because they are totally depraved. I say if, 
it be not, for some persons suppose that they have re- 
demption. A very learned man has lately published a 
work, to prove that Christ saves persons in the spirit- 
world. But if they were totally depraved, it would be 
a good reason why God would not love them, or provide 
a Saviour for them. 

Conversion is called washing; but in washing, the 
garment is there ; its texture, its nature is unchanged ; 
it is only defiled, not destroyed, and in washing, the de- 
filement is separated from it. It is not the nature of the 
garment that is taken away. Christ is called a refiner's 
fire ; but w T e never refine dross. There must be some 
gold, when it goes into the refiner's fire, or none will 
pass through it. The dross will not become gold. There 
must be something good in man, to afford a foundation 
for God to love him, or for Christ to love him. They 
can not love total depravity. In the parable of the hun- 
dred sheep, where one was lost, it was not a wolf that 



HUMAN DEPKAVITY. 393 

was lost, but a sheep of the same nature of the ninety- 
nine left in the wilderness. Not one that was never in 
the fold ; but one of the original hundred. They re- 
mained ; but this one was a lost sheep, which the shep- 
herd loved, and left the ninety and nine to bring back to 
the fold. This parable beautifully illustrates our going 
astray, and our lost condition ; but if our nature become 
changed, totally depraved, leaving no good about us, 
the great Shepherd could not love us, and no attempt 
would be made to redeem us. In the parable of the 
woman that had the ten pieces of silver, of which one 
was lost, the Saviour does not teach that she originally 
had nine, and sought another in the mines ; or that the 
lost one was not silver. Nor, when she found it, did she 
find an entire lump of dross, with no silver about it ; but 
there was good metal even in the lost piece. So, also, 
in the parable of the prodigal son. It was not that the 
father had one son, and sent and procured a wild man ; 
or a being of totally distinct nature, and adopted as a 
second son ; but it was his own son, who was originally 
in his own father's house, and whorof his own choice, 
left that house, and went into a far country, and spent 
the substance, which he had received of a loving father, in 
riotous living ; who remembered his father's house, from 
whence he came, and said, I will arise and go to my 
father, and I will say, I have sinned ; but his father saw 
him, when he was yet a great way off, and though he 
had rebelled, yet the father loved him, and ran and fell 
on his neck, and kissed him, and brought him into the 
house, and commanded them to bring forth the best robe 
and put it on him, and a ring on his finger, and shoes 
on his feet, and to kill the fatted calf ; for, said he, this, 
my son, which was dead, is alive again, and was lost, is 
found. Bless God for such illustrations of his love. The 
son was not horn a prodigal, in a strange land, or far off 
country; but he came back to the place of his birth, to 
his own father's house. True, the sinner is dead in 
trespasses, and in sins ; but this death does not imply a 



394 DISCUSSION ON 

lack of all life, so that it is impossible to do any good ; 
any more than the saint's deadness to sin — ye are dead, 
and your life is hid with Christ in God — implies that 
they have not power to sin ; but it signifies cleadness to 
the life of holiness. Those thus dead, are free to do good, 
if they will, and are absolutely called upon to do good : 
"Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." 
This deadness is not a deadness of power or ability ; but 
a cessation of effort and activity. 

Mr. Flood's Third address, and Twenty-seventh speech : 
We proceed now, briefly, to review our opponent, Mr. 
Summerbell. He insists, that if human nature is entirely 
depraved in the progeny of a fallen head, as the descend- 
ants of Adam must necessarily be, then Adam must 
have been entirely depraved when he proceeded from the 
hand of God. We believe that like produces like — that 
Adam, in his creation, was made upright in the sight of 
his Creator, God, and that in sinning against God he 
lost that likeness, and that this constitutes the nature of 
his fall. He fell from the favor and friendship of heaven, 
by violating the law of God. He says, if this doctrine 
of depravity were true, mothers, instead of loving their 
children, would kill them. Is not my brother aware that 
this practice prevails in heathen countries ? There are 
thousands of children sacrificed annually, being cast into 
the Ganges, and multitudes perish annually under the 
rolling wheels of Juggernaut. Such is the depravity of 
human nature. We quote from Romans i, 31, " With- 
out understanding, covenant- breakers, without natural 
affection, implacable, unmerciful:" referring, doubtless, 
to the heathen worship. Such are the consequences of 
the fall, that it produces such a measure of depravity, 
that natural affection is lost — that the mother may forget 
her sucking child. He represents that they would be as 
bad as rattlesnakes, and represents little children looking 
up into the faces of their mothers as fiends. Who has 
assumed that little children, in their redeemed relation. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 895 

are as rattlesnakes ? Though they inherit a corrupt na- 
ture, and are inclined to evil, yet the redemption by 
Christ changes their relation, and they stand justified in 
the sight of God, not by natural generation, but through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; for if infants be 
saved by natural regeneration, then they will not join the 
song of the Redeemer, and will not be numbered with 
the innumerable hosts of God's elect saved in heaven ; 
they will have found their way to heaven upon different 
ground altogether. We say of all infant children, of 
Christian or heathen parents, that those infant children, 
being passive in the fall, received the benefit of the atone- 
ment, and are saved in Jesus Christ; though by natural 
generation they inherit the same nature which their 
parents possessed — for like must beget like — tk None are 
righteous, no not one." Romans iii, 10. How is the 
apostle speaking of righteousness here? no living soul 
can be justified by the deeds of the law. " By the deeds 
of the law shall no flesh be justified; 5 ' hence, legally, 
there are none righteous, no not one: but in an evangel- 
ical sense, I am happy to say there are many. All in- 
fants sustain this relation in an evangelical sense, but not 
in a legal sense. He says, I have a very crude theo- 
logy ; I suppose he so regards it. Perhaps this is the 
reason why it is so troublesome to him ; it seems he has 
found out what my theology is, but I will not pretend to 
say what his is, I have made few discoveries in that di- 
rection. He, however, agrees with the Universalists, 
that man did not morally die in the fall, and thinks the 
Bible is incorrect in stating that " in the day thou eatest 
thereof, thou shalt surely die." I do not assume that the 
physical or intellectual organization of man w T as annihi- 
lated in the fall. We say that all the intellectual and 
physical qualities of man were alike affected by the fall. 
They were not annihilated, but turned into a perverse 
direction ; hence, the will and affections of man are per- 
verse in their natures. Man's nature is corrupt and 
depraved, " corrupt, polluted in all its parts;" hence, God 



396 DISCUSSION ON 

could not love them with the love of complacency, but 
with the love of pity ; he could not love them to the ex- 
tent that he loved angels, but his love was equal to their 
most extended wants, so that he provided for their 
redemption and salvation. 

He says, at last, my friend has acknowledged that hu- 
man nature is entirely depraved. It is the very thing I 
presented in my first argument, and I supported by over- 
whelming testimony from the Word of God. I want an 
answer to those texts which show the entire depravity of 
human nature. The reference to the parable of the nine- 
ty-nine sheep, while the good shepherd went in pursuit 
of the hundredth that was lost — that lost sheep, I sup- 
pose, had not lost its identity. So is it with the lost 
inhabitants of this world, they have lost their moral ex- 
cellence and likeness to God ; in this condition Jesus 
Christ found them, and came to restore them to favor. 
"He came to seek and to save that which was lost," not 
that which was partially lost. If the doctrine of my 
brother is correct, Jesus Christ came to perform a par- 
tial work. Then he adverts to the parable of the Prodi- 
gal Son — one of the last I should have thought he would 
have introduced. What was the condition of this young 
man ? He w T as in his father's house, which he volun- 
tarily left, voluntarily he wasted his goods. But at 
length, it is said, he came to himself, so that he was as a 
man lost to himself. Do men that are dead, awake to 
life without the voice of God ? In order to give some 
show of argument, he asserted that were man entirely 
depraved, he would be as water running down hill. I 
said, that man w r as inclined to evil, and that continually, 
as I have shown from texts from the Word of God, and 
my friend has not succeeded in making anything to the 
contrary appear. I now invite your attention to my 
eighth proposition. 

8th. The relations of infants to the law is not the relation 
sustained by actual transgressors, though they inherit an 
entirely depraved nature by their parentage, yet infants 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 397 

are passive in the fall, and must be passive in the redemp- 
tion by Jesus Christ ; they cannot be subjects of law, 
therefore they are unconditionally saved in Jesus Christ. 
" Where there is no law there is no transgression." — 
Eom. v, 15. 

From this it will be seen, that although they are sub- 
jects of the law, they are not transgressors of the law of 
God. Hence, not guilty, and hence, not condemned, and 
are therefore justified, sanctified, and saved, not by the 
law, but by the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence, Chris- 
tian mothers need not look upon their infants as little 
fiends, and rattlesnakes, but as heirs of heaven if they 
pass away in a state of infancy. Let us rejoice that this 
is the grand doctrine of the Bible with regard to infant 
salvation. We now invite you to further proof, Rom. v, 
18, u Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteous- 
ness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justifica- 
tion of life." And the term (men) hence is applicable to 
the whole race. 

Mr. Summerbell's Third reply, and Twenty-seventh 
speech : 
I am more and more pleased with my brother's exer- 
tions ; he is at the laboring oar, but he toils well. It is 
true, he is suffering somewhat from fever, but I hope 
this will pass off. He talks about courtesy, and says he 
will defend the doctrine of the Trinity against my attacks, 
as though I had attacked it. He says that children fell, 
but w T ere not condemned ; that they were lost, but not 
guilty ; subjects of law, yet without law ; fallen, but not 
sinners ; not condemned, yet redeemed. This is very 
crooked theology. It is better to have a true system, 
then he would not have to cross his track so often. He 
says that infants were passive yet fell : passive yet re- 
deemed ; so that the infants have nothing to do with it. 
My brother has yet to prove that any thing was ever 
redeemed from total depravity. My argument that God 



898 DISCUSSION ON 

could not Jove any thing that was totally depraved, my 
brother has not answered, and can not answer. He says 
infants were passive in the fall, and could not be con- 
demned, because they had not sinned ; thus God had to 
bring in the atonement as a kind of remedy for his bad 
government. God had placed infants where they would 
go to hell innocently, by his bad arrangement ; so he is 
obliged to provide the atonement to keep them out ! 

He answers the parables by saying that the prodigal 
son would not have come back without God's grace ; as 
though I had said that men would be saved without the 
grace of God. He has quoted no one text which shows 
that man is entirely depraved in his nature, and inclined 
to evil, and that continually, so that he can not think 
one good thought, or do one good act, or put forth any 
good exertion in the right way. 

My friend urges that he holds to the salvation of all 
children ; I know he does, but I challenge him to prove 
it by his system. He has renounced Calvinistic and 
Presbyterian theology, and repudiates it ; yet he loses in 
that, the only chance of saving totally depraved children. 
The Bible does not say that children are saved irom total 
depravity; but, " of such is the kingdom of Heaven." 

He thinks that my views accord with Universal ists, 
because I deny that all mankind die a moral death in 
Adam — i. e., became dead in trespasses and in sins ; but 
it is his theory that agrees with Universalism. They 
quote, " As in Adam all die (morally), even so, in 
Christ, shall all be made alive ;• and thus prove their 
system by his interpretation. And his Creed positively 
proves Universalism, where it says, " The offering of 
Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both 
original and actual : and there is none other satisfaction 
for sin but that alone." — Art. xx, p. 87. Now, can he 
think of any other sin ? Here, then, is complete redemp- 
tion, even for him who sins to the last moment. Those 
who live in glass houses should not throw stones. 



HUMAN DEPKAVITY. 399 

The true doctrine is, that as in Adam all go down to 
the grave, even so in Christ, all will have a resurrection ; 
that is, as in Adam all die, even so, in Christ, shall all 
be made alive. 

What was his argument, that the workers of iniquity 
had gone contrary to nature and become exceedingly 
wicked ? When he came to the word " natural," he 
wished to stop, but being under rapid headway, was 
obliged to complete the sentence ? " Without natural 
affection ! " said he ; that is, they were very wicked, 
being without natural affection ; but where is the evil 
of being without natural affection, if nature be totally 
depraved ? 

What did he mean by affirming that, " mothers did 
kill their children in heathen countries ;" but to prove 
that mothers are totally depraved, and are inclined to 
kill their children, inasmuch as they have been guilty 
of those things in some part of the world \ But all this 
cruelty proceeds from human religions and men-made 
Constitutions and Disciplines, invented by priests, who 
make those mothers believe that God requires hloodand 
suffering to appease his wrath ; and those mothers do 
this, not from inclination, but regarding it as a religious 
duty. He says that Adam fell entirely from the grace 
of God. Thank God we have Bibles which teach us 
differently ; that God did not give up his creatures, the 
work of his hands, for the first offense. God's loving 
kindness followed our first parents after the fall, and the 
very promise of a Saviour, w 7 as the best proof that 
Heaven could give, that man had not lost the favour of 
his God. God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten son. This love preceded the^gift, and was the 
moving cause of it. 

That infants are not sinners, is proved from the very 
nature of things. As Paul says, Rom. ix, 11, "The 
children being not yet born, neither having done good 
or evil." It is no more philosophic, or truthful, to say 
that children sinned in Adam, than in Cain. 



400 DISCUSSION ON 

Some have it that : 

"In Adam's fall, we sinned all ; 
In Cain's murder, went on further ; 
And so kept on, in murder done, 
'Till Noah's flood washed out the blood ; 
And after that, as soon as we were able, 
We all set to, and built the Tower of Babel." 

This represents my brother's theology precisely. 

Sin is a transgression of the law, but where there is 
no law, there is no transgression ; and it is evident to 
all, that to the infant there is no law, and hence no sin. 
We read, Matt, xix, 13, 14, " Then there were brought 
unto him little children, that he should put his hands on 
them, and pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. But 
Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not ; 
for of such is the kingdom of heaven ;" not that those in 
heaven are totally depraved by nature. 

Jesus also said, " Except ye be converted, and become 
as little children, (not totally depraved,) ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven. 5 ' — Matt, xviii, 3. 
But, if children are totally depraved, the less we are like 
them, the better. Or it would then be, except ye become 
totally depraved and inclined to evil, and that contin- 
ually, ye can not enter heaven ! 

The Bible does not sustain the dogma, that we all 
sinned and fell into total depravity in Adam: having 
our entire nature changed. It was a Jewish error which 
God himself corrected. I will read a portion of Ezekiel, 
chapter xviii : 

" 1 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 

2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning 
the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour 
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge ? 

3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have 
occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 

4 Behold, all souls are mine ; as the soul of the fa- 
ther, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that 
sinneth it shall die. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 401 

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful 
and right, 

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither 
hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of 
Israel. 

8 * * Hath executed true judgment between man 
and man. 

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my 
judgments, to deal truly ; he is just, he shall surely live, 
saith the Lord God. 

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of 
blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, 

11 And that doeth not auy of those duties, * * * 

12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled 
by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted 
up his eyes to the idols; hath committed abomination. 

13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken in- 
crease: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath 
done all these abominations ; he shall surely die, his 
blood shall be upon him. 

14 Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father's 
sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not 
such like. 

vt* vf* tT* vf" Vp Vf" vt* 

17 .* * He shall not die for the iniquity of his fa- 
ther, he shall surely live. 

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, 
spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is 
not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his 
iniquity. 

19 Yet say ye, Why ? doth not the son bear the ini- 
quity of the father? When the son hath done that which 
is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and 
hath done th6m, he shall surely live. 

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall 
not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father 
bear the iniquity of the son ; the righteousness of the 

34 



402 DISCUSSION ON 

righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the 
wicked shall be upon him. 

21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that 
he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that 
which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall 
not die. 

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they 
shall not be mentioned unto him : in his righteousness 
that lie hath done he shall live. 

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should 
die ? saith the Lord God ; and not that he should return 
from his ways, and live ? 

24 But when the righteous turneth away from his 
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth accord- 
ing to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, 
shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done 
shall not be mentioned: in his trespass, that he hath 
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
shall he die. 

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. 
Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal % are 
not your ways unequal ? 

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his 
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in 
them ; for his iniquity that he hath clone, shall he die. 

27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from 
his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that 
which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 

28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all 
his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely 
live, he shall not die. 

29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord 
is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? 
are not your ways unequal ? 

30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every 
one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, 
and turn yourselves from all your transgressions ; so ini- 
quity shall not be your ruin. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 403 

31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, where- 
by ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart 
and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that 
dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore, turn yourselves, 
and live ye." 

Matt, xviii, 3, Jesus' blessing little children, and say- 
ing " of such is the kingdom of heaven," is in strict 
accordance with this. 

The temporal death of all is no proof of total depravity, 
since death has passed upon all, even upon those who have 
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. 
They were deprived of the tree of life in the garden, so 
as to rise from this sinful world, to a better state ; for as 
all die in Adam a physical death, so all in Christ shall 
have a resurrection. Our common language is opposed 
to this doctrine. 

We say that a cruel person acts inhumanly ; but if 
human nature were totally depraved, they would act most 
humanely, when they acted most cruelly. 

We expect love, paternal, filial and fraternal affec- 
tion, even of the unconverted, which we should not, if they 
are by nature inclined to evil only, and that continually, 
as my brother's creed says. 

We expect respect to religion in the unconverted, 
which would be the blackest hypocrisy, if they were 
totally depraved, and inclined to evil continually. 

We see a religious feeling manifest in every nation, 
however heathen, which shows that they are not totally 
depraved. 

We expect virtue and moral worth in the unconverted, 
which could not be, if they were inclined to evil only 
and continually. 

The Scriptures give no such meaning to the word Na- 
ture, as thev would attach to it. It is well known to 
those familiar with the Scriptures that nature often sig- 
nifies merely birth, nativity, custom, habit ; and not 
always disposition, instinct, propensity. So in Eph. ii 5 3, 



404 DISCUSSION ON 

the apostle says, that some " were by nature the children 
of wrath," using the Greek word, phiisei, which signifies 
disposition. 

James i, 23, speaks of a man beholding his natural face 
in a glass ; here it is geneseos, from ginomai, birth, 01 
nativity. But in the vast majority of cases nature is 
spoken of as good, correct, &c. 

Rom. i, 26, "For this cause God gave them up to 
vile affections against nature {phusiken)" Here, you 
see, that it is set forth as a great evil for God to give 
men up to act contrary to nature ; but my brother would 
count it a great blessing. 

1 Cor. xi, 14, " Doth not even nature {fusos) itself 
teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame 
unto him ?" Here nature, though the word might signify 
birth or origin, yet barely means the custom or practice 
of the country. 

Rom. ii, 14, "For when the Gentiles, which have 
not the law, do by nature {phusei) the things con- 
tained in the law: these having not the law, are a law 
unto themselves, which show the work of the law written 
in their hearts," &c. Thus, as Dr. Macknight testifies 
on this verse, there is a light in nature itself, which is a 
revelation from God to all nations; so that the mind of 
man is made to harmonize with the mind of God. But 
how, if his nature were totally depraved, could it har- 
monize with the mind of God ? or how could he do by 
nature the things contained in the law ? The apostle 
here supposes that there exists in nature, a transcript of 
the law of God. 

Galatians ii, 15, "Who are Jews by nature, (phicsei) 
and not sinners of the Gentiles." Here nature signifies 
birth or education; so also Rom. xi, 16, Jews are spoken 
of as the natural, (phusia?na or phusin) branches of the 
good olive tree ;" but how could they be thus naturally, 
if nature be totally depraved ? 

James iii, 6, " The tongue is said to be an unruly 
member," &c. "Itsettethon fire the whole course of 



HUMAN BEPEAVITY. 405 

nature," (genes eos, race or descent) ; yet if nature were 
totally depraved it would not need to be kindled into a 
conflagration. 

2 Tim. iii, 3, To be " without natural affection," is 
ranked among the very greatest evils and crimes, show- 
ing that nature is not totally depraved. 

Phil, ii, 20, Paul said, that he "sent Timothy, who 
would naturally (genesius) care for the churches ;" but 
this could not be if nature were totally depraved. So we 
find that, despite of human dogmas, the preponderating 
testimony from the Bible is favorable to nature. And why 
not ? Do not nature and revelation emanate from the 
same God ? Is not the God of nature^ the God of reve- 
lation % Sin is a transgression of the law ; but the de- 
pravity of children, inherited through the flesh, is no 
transgression of theirs, and can not be so construed as 
to condemn them ; nor so magnified as to make their 
nature totally depraved ; nor so guilty as to sink the 
innocent spirit. Neither can that weakness of the flesh 
be fully redeemed by a spiritual birth ; for that which is 
born of spirit is spirit, as truly as that born of flesh is 
flesh. (Jo. iii, 6.) This weakness or depravity of the 
flesh is treated at large by Paul, Rom. vii, 18-25, where 
he says, " I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwell- 
eth no good thing," and speaks of a " law in his mem- 
bers, which wars against the law of his mind ;" and 
thanking God for the victory, calls it, a "keeping under 
of the body;" rejoicing in the hope still in the future, 
of the " redemption of the bodyP Now it seems to me, 
that if saints can be holy and yet possess this infirmity 
of the flesh, notwithstanding their conversion, that child- 
ren may also ; and when, and where, and how, saints 
will be relieved of this infirmity of the flesh, children 
also may be, and that will be when they receive the 
resurrection body, fashioned like unto the glorious body 
of Christ. Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the vic- 
tory through our Lord Jesus Christ. The discrepancies 
in the system of total depravity are glaring everyway. 



406 DISCUSSION ON 

§ 

They think that children must be regenerated to remove 
this depravity, and yet, after the supposed regeneration, 
there is found precisely the same disposition ; and I sug- 
gest, that if the natural temperament of the child proves 
it totally depraved, that same temperament, found in 
older (saints ?) must prove them still totally depraved. 
And if original corruption renders regeneration neces- 
sary before conversion, that same original corruption 
renders regeneration necessary after conversion. But 
the child needs it not. It, when dying in infancy, is 
"redeemed from the earth — redeemed from among 
men," Rev. xiv, 3, 4, and receives a spiritual, immortal 
body, raised in glory, fashioned like unto the glorious 
body of Jesus Christ. But my brother thinks nothing 
can be redeemed unless it be totally lost — that the gold 
must be dross, or it can not be refined ; as well might we 
say that we must be annihilated, or we cannot be saved. 
Blessed be God, that for all, there is prepared the re- 
demption which they need. 

Mr. Flood's Fourth address, and Twenty-eighth speech : 
I now proceed with the argument. I invite your 
attention to Is. i, 5, 6, " The whole head is sick, and the 
whole heart faint ; from the sole of the foot, even unto 
the head, there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and 
bruises, and putrefying sores." I will read Clarke's 
Commentary on this passage. 

" Why should ye be stricken any more, ye will revolt 
more and more ; the whole head is sick, and the whole 
heart faint; from the sole of the foot even unto the 
head there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises 
and putrefying sores ; they have not been closed, neither 
bound up, neither mollified with ointment." 

" There are some who explain it thus, Upon what limb 
shall ye be smitten if you have defection, for already for 
your sins have you been smitten upon all of them, so 
that there is not to be found in you a whole limb, on 
which you can be smitten ; which agrees with what fol- 



m HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 407 

lows — from the sole of the foot, even to the head, there 
is no soundness in him." 

We remark, that no stronger or emphatical language 
could be employed, than is here employed to express the 
depravity of human nature; when the whole head is 
sick, there must follow necessarily, an affection of the 
whole system. The term heart is frequently used to rep- 
resent affections. Here the Holy Ghost takes up its 
residence, when it is made a temple fit to dwell in, but 
when corrupt and polluted, the affections, as well as the 
body — the temple of the Holy Ghost is polluted. "From 
the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no 
soundness in it ; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying 
sores; they have not been closed, nor bound up, nor mol- 
lified with ointment." Here is doubtless, a reference to 
sores which are filled wtth proud flesh. We could not 
conceive of anything more expressive of absolute cor- 
ruption ; hence, we say, it is entirely corrupt in all its 
parts — entirely depraved. My friend can find it in Web- 
ster. Hence, my brother's argument upon this was a 
waste of words. There is no soundness in it. Now my 
friend assumes that there is some soundness somewhere. 
He knew a man somewhere, out of the Church, who was 
highly respected for his integrity and veracity. How 
far that man, as well as thousands of others, are under 
restraining grace, no one can tell ; certainly it is not con- 
fined to the Church of God. All good whatever, is from 
Gocl, for he is the source of all moral excellence. I 
assume the position, that the entirely depraved, when 
called into action, must act in accordance with their nature; 
hence, the salvation of every individual who has violated 
the law, has its foundation in God's grace, and my brother 
has utterly and signally failed to answer it. But if this 
man was a man of veracity, he was also a gentleman, and 
hence w 7 ould not call his opponent a liar. I suppose that 
he will get up and state to this audience that he was 
mad. I present my friend as a living evidence of entire 
depravity, after he could laugh at the audience, and 



408 DISCUSSION ON 

whisper in my ear that I had lied ; when in the days of 
my youth, such a term would have certainly been very 
trying to poor, fallen human nature, and it would still be 
so, but for a sense of duty — that I was a Christian 
minister, and that I had a ministerial character, however 
humble, and that I did not come to this place to make a 
character, and to receive a standing at the hand of my 
opponent for truth and veracity. I am speaking to my 
brother, and I speak not boastingly. The Records of the 
Ohio Annual Conference will tell what is, and what has 
been, the standing of J. M. Flood ; he has been connected 
with that body during fourteen years, and by their un- 
solicited suffrages been called to fill every office in it, and 
has he received this expression of confidence from his 
brethren — then to be here vulgarly called a liar! 

He has demonstrated, in the hearing of this audience, 
that human nature is entirely depraved, and I offer a 
prayer here, that in the case of my brother, this bent of 
fallen human nature may be restored, and may be for- 
given in the end. My friend sets out with the statement, 
that if infants are totally depraved, then they would 
necessarily have gone to hell, unless Christ had redeemed 
them. I will ask my brother a question : If Christ had 
not made atonement for man, and the human race had 
been permitted to be propagated, whether Adam and his 
posterity would not have gone to hell — if there be a hell, 
and such a progeny could have been propagated — if such 
would not have been their fate ? The atonement of 
Christ had to be made to save infants ; and to save men 
it was made to meet the case of infants, for it was not 
possible that God could see fit to damn them. If God 
had not seen fit to redeem man, he would have executed 
condemnation upon the first transgressors. I could sooner 
cease to worship the Almighty, than believe that he 
could damn infants. God has made an unconditional 
redemption — it saves and sanctifies through Jesus Christ, 
and by the power of his grace — saves, sanctifies, and glo- 
rifies it in heaven. If it dies in a state of infancy, it i3 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 409 

not saved independently of the grace of God, and the 
atonement of Christ. If it be so, I assert its song will 
not be united with the song of its parents ; and I turn 
again to those mothers, whose children have died and 
left them in their infancy ; could you conceive that that 
voice would be possessed of that delight and charm, if 
you supposed your infant child were denied the privilege 
of joining the song of the redeemed, " unto Him who 
has loved us, and washed us," &c ? It would be touching 
a note infinitely below that which is touched by the 
redeemed of Jesus Christ. My opponent admits, that 
infants need something, but he does not state, however, 
what it is. If they need something, I should like to 
know what it is, and what need is supplied in Jesus 
Christ. I assume, that they need every thing, and what- 
ever that every thing implies, that they have it, uncon- 
ditionally, through the efficacy of the atonement of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Overset it, if you will, sir. Does 
my opponent argue, to an issue made by me ? No ! he 
argues to an issue made by himself — a false issue — and 
this is the only one he is willing to meet. There has not 
been a single hour, from the commencement of this 
discussion, in which the way has not seemed clearer to 
my view, and the very mists that my friend has made, 
have been dissipated. I am happy, to be able to say, 
toward the close of this discussion, that my spirit feels 
as free, at this hour, as the bird of paradise. I do not 
know when I have felt less restriction, in the advocacy 
of the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel. My oppo- 
nent charges me with saying, that human nature is 
totally depraved. I have not said so once. I use the 
phrase, entirely depraved, and submit to the authority of 
Webster ; and I say, that we inherit an entirely depraved 
nature, but by grace we inherit salvation by Jesus Christ, 
and if we die in infancy, we inherit salvation, being in a 
passive state. He thinks, parents would love their child- 
ren less, if they thought they inherited an entirely 
depraved nature ; but do not parents find it necessary to 
35 



410 DISCUSSION OK 

exercise restraints over the dispositions of their children, 
and their tendency to evil ? How many parents have 
seen their sons and daughters running in the path of 
depravity and wretchedness ? and how many parents 
have been thus brought to the grave, with sorrow ? And 
when this has not been the case, it is by the restraining 
influence of Christ, and not because their dispositions are 
not inclined to evil, and that continually. 

Again, my brother quotes the passage respecting sour 
grapes, and several others, which relate to the fact, that 
children should not be held responsible for the sins of 
the parents. He says, I say, that w 7 hen we are required 
to put away the sins of our father, we can not do it. 
I hold, that of ourselves we can do nothing, and our 
sufficiency is of God. " I can do all things, through Jesus 
Christ, which strengthened me." So when the son is 
commanded to avoid the sins of his father, it is because 
the grace of Jesus Christ is sufficient for him, through 
the ability which Christ Jesus has afforded him, and that 
he ought to put them away by the grace of Christ. We 
now invite attention to the reading of Clarke, on the 
passage, "The heart is deceitful above all things and des- 
perately wicked." 

Jeremiah, chap, xvii, note on verse 9th, (the heart is 
deceitful). "The heart is supplanting — tortuous — full of 
windings — insidious — lying ever at the catch — striving 
to avail itself of every iavoring circumstance to gratify 
its propensities to pride, ambition, evil desire, and cor- 
ruption of all kinds." 

That looks very much like entire depravity. 

Mb. Summereell's Fourth reply, and Twenty-eighth 
speech. 
My friend wants me to prove, that the sinner can put 
away sin without grace; but I have taken no such 
position, and, therefore, there is no necessity of my prov- 
ing it. He says I admitted, that he drew the w r ind 
from my sails. Did J? I did not know that I admit- 
ted any such thing. On the nature of depravity, he 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 411 

appeals to Webster, but Webster cannot help him, for 
Webster is not illogical. He says the heart and head, 
Isaiah i, 6, signify the whole man — the whole nervous 
system. If he will take the trouble to read the text, he 
will find it refers not to a man, but to a nation, and is 
not a physical, but a political corruption. Thus Clarke 
comments: "The whole head is sick, the king and priest 
are equally gone away from truth and righteousness." 
Do you not see, that my brother gave a wrong explana- 
tion of the text? His appeal to Clarke has quite failed. 

On a careful examination of the texts that have been 
quoted by my brother, I find that none of them speak of 
man's nature, but of his actual transgression. My bro- 
ther quoted Paul, who said : " The flesh lusteth against 
the spirit," showing that there is some conservative good 
in man, notwithstanding the tendency of the flesh to evil. 
• Romans i, 26, shows that these vile affections were 
against nature. If you commit sin, you sin against your 
own conscience, and against your God ; against all the 
good in heaven, and against yourself. Sin disturbs the 
mind, and makes us feel bad, very bad — and somebody 
here feels very bad now. 

My brother has constantly endeavored to confound the 
general and extreme depravity of man, w T ith the ques- 
tion, as though I denied the sinfulness of our race. I 
believe that as firmly as he ; and that you may have a 
view of it, showing that the Bible does not picture it in 
too vivid colors, let me read you a passage from Dick's 
works. I think that my brother could hardly desire a 
darker picture. 

"The following is a brief summary of the principal 
punishments that have been adopted by men, in dif- 
ferent countries, for tormenting and destroying each 
other. Capital punishment. — Beheading, strangling, 
crucifixion, drowning, burning, roasting, hanging by the 
neck, the arm, or the leg ; starving, sawing, exposing to 
wild beasts, rending asunder by horses drawing opposite 
ways, shooting, burying alive, blowing from the mouth 



412 DISCUSSION ON 

of a cannon, compulsory deprivation of sleep, rolling on 
a barrel stuck with nails, cutting to pieces, hanging by 
the ribs, poisoning, pressing slowly to death, by a weight 
laid on the breast ; casting headlong from a rock, tearing 
out the bowels, pulling to pieces with red hot pinchers, 
stretching on the rack, breaking on the wheel, impaling, 
flaying alive, cutting out the heart, &c, &c, &c. Pun- 
ishments' short of death, have been such as the follow- 
ing: Fine, pillory, imprisonment, compulsory labor at the 
mines, galleys, highways, or correction house ; whipping, 
bastinadoing, mutilation, by cutting away the ears, the 
nose, the breasts of women, the tongue, the foot, the 
hand, squeezing the marrow from the bones, with screws 
or wedges, castration, putting out the eyes, banishment, 
running the gauntlet, drumming, shaving off the hair, 
burning on the hand or forehead, and many others of a 
similar nature.'- — Dick's Philosophy of Religion, Vol. i, 
page 126. 

I now call your attention again, to some Scriptural and 
philosophical arguments, against the doctrine of the total 
depravity of our nature, when born into the world. 

1. Deut. ix, 12, and xxxii, 5, Moses says that some 
had " corrupted themselves ;" but this they could not have 
done, if they were born totally depraved. Ec. vii, 29, 
says that a God made man upright ; but they have sought 
out many inventions." 

2. Gen. v, 22, Enoch, who " walked with God," could 
not have been totally depraved. 

3. John the Baptist, miraculously inspired from the 
very beginning of his existence, could not have been 
totally depraved. 

4. Is. i, 18, If our reason were totally depraved, God 
would not say: " Come, let us reason together." 

5. If we were totally depraved, good could not be ex- 
pected, nor evil blamed, since all would be inclined 
to evil only, and continually ; and hence, could no 
more be blamed, than the brutes which act out their 
nature. 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY, 413 

As the poet says : 

" Let dogs delight to bark and bite, 

For God has made them so ; 
Let bears and lions growl and fight, 

For 'tis their nature too ; 
But children, you should never let 

Such angry passions rise ; 
Your little hands were never made 

To tear each other's eyes." 

But if children are born totally depraved, and inclined 
to evil, and that continually, this is just as true of them^ 
as of hears and lions. 

6. The principal texts depended upon to support this 
doctrine, are home-made Scriptures, such as: 

First, " Man is prone to evil, as the sparks fly up- 
ward." The correct reading is, Job. v, 7, " Man is born 
to trouble, as the sparks fly upward." 

Second, " Christ was made in all points as we are, 
sin excepted." The correct readiny is, Heb. iv, 14, 
" was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." 

7. 1 Cor. ii, 14. "The natural man receiveth not of 
the spirit of God." Natural man, here, signifies the 
animal man, as testified by Macknight. 

8. .Nature is good! and in peace and love, as a beau- 
tiful river, it would ever flow onward toward the great 
ocean of unbroken harmony ; but sin rises to obstruct its 
passage, by opposing obstacles, which war on its peace, 
and thus its progress is disturbed, as the even flowing 
river, by the uneven rocky bed of the channel. Thus the 
harmony of nature is destroyed by sin, and remorse takes 
the place of sweet peace, showing sin to be a violation 
of our nature. 

9. Nature is healing, and soothing. Nature heals 
the sore ; heals the bruise ; knits together the broken 
bone. Nature very often heals in spite of the physician. 
Nature is good. 

10. Sin, in destroying man, proves itself contrary to 
his nature. 

11. My brother thinks that man's sinning, is a proof 
of total depravity. I challenge my brother to tell us how 



414 DISCUSSION ON 

men would act, were God to produce a new race not 
depraved, and place them in like circumstances with us. 

12. The beautiful world we live in, with its balmy air, 
and gushing fountains, and crvstal streams, and blooming 
forests, and diamond jetted sky, all go to prove that 
man is not, by nature, totally depraved, else God would 
have given him a world more appropriate. 

13. It is a cruel theology which has taken the advan- 
tage of the child's innocence, to represent it as totally 
depraved. 

14. Man's physical organization, shows that he is not 
born totally depraved. Were he born thus, then he would 
be born with teeth, or tusks, instead of teeth ; and claws, 
instead of hands, and instead of walking upright in the 
image of- God, he would go on all-fours. 

15. The poet has well said: 

" Nature affords, at least, a glimmering light, 
The lines, tho' touched butfaintlij, are drawn right." 

16. Were nature totally depraved, then we would 
naturally haie every thing lovely, and love every hateful 
thing ; but instead of this, we love virtue. Virtue is the 
first, and sin is a contrivance which comes afterward. 

17. My brother's method of preaching, in blaming the 
sinner for not repenting, shows that he does not regard 
him as totally depraved ; for if he were, and inclined to 
evil only, and that continually, we might just as well call 
upon the sparks to fly downward, or water to run up hill. 
God's dealing with man at first, in promising him a 
Saviour, is contrary to the supposition, that man was 
totally depraved. 

18. Mankind living as social beings, in families, soci- 
eties, cities, and nations, is proof of the absence of total 
depravity, and that the poet's words are true: 

u Two principles in human nature reign, 
Self-love to urge, and reason to restrain/' 

19. Legislators — unregenerate men — such as Jeffer- 
son, Franklin, Clay, and others, by their enactment of 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 415 

laws to promote the good of the human family — by 
discountenancing crime, show that they are not totally 
depraved, and inclined to evil only, and that continually: 
else they would make laws that we should lie, and 
swear, and murder, and steal. 

20. Fathers abiding with their families, and toiling 
for their good, day by day, show that they are not totally 
depraved, and inclined only to evil, and that continually. 
Mothers watching over their children — ah! can the 
mother look at her smiling babe, and say, I believe that 
it is totally depraved ? Mothers, instead of watching 
over, would slay their children, if those mothers were 
totally depraved. 

21. We object to the doctrine of total depravity, as 
calculated to lessen the love of parents for their children; 
for if parents really believed this doctrine, they would be 
forced to regard their children as little fiends or serpents, 
and not as innocent — as young angels to be trained for 
glory. 

22. It never can be reconciled with the fact, that God 
so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, &c. 
For if we are all by nature totally depraved, there is 
nothing to love ; all is totally depraved, nothing good, 
nothing lovely, and we do not believe that God could 
love sin, love corruption — love total depravity. 

23. I have sometimes thought, that if no redemption 
were provided for fallen angels — though I speak respect- 
fully of the opinions of some who suppose that such 
redemption has been provided — it was because they 
became totally depraved. 

24. If we were totally depraved, and inclined to evil 
only, and that continually, this congregation would not 
sit quiet a moment, but rise, with cursing and swearing 
upon their lips, and fall to, to destroying, and devouring 
each other immediately. 

25. If we were totally depraved when born, we 
could not go astrav as soon as born, nor could the 



416 DISCUSSION ON 

wicked wax worse and worse, if totally depraved in the 
start. 

26. The circumstance of the Ninevites does not show 
total depravity, for Christ says, that they were not as 
bad as those who rejected the Gospel. — Matt, xii, 41. 

27. The Sodomites were not totally depraved, for 
Christ plainly shows, that they were better than the 
wicked Jews. 

28. The Samaritans were not totally depraved, for 
God says, that the Jews were more abominable than 
they, and that they were more righteous than the Jews. 
Ezek. xvi, 52, 53. 

29. If all were totally depraved, then there could be 
found no perfect Job, (i, 1,) — no good Samaritan — no 
Israelite in whom is no guile. — John i, 47. 

30. Being dead in trespasses and sin does not prove 
that we are totally depraved, any more than to be dead 
to sin proves that we are perfect and infallible. Except 
a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it remaineth 
alone, &c. ; though it die, it is not entirely corrupt, but 
still possesses a germ of life. So, also, Jesus says, " The 
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 
John v, 25. And that this is a moral resurrection, is 
proved by the following verse : " Marvel not at this, for 
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their 
graves shall hear his voice and come forth ; they that 
have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they 
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna- 
tion." 

31. That mankind are depraved — very depraved — 
there is no controversy between my brother and me. I 
believe in the general, universal depravity of our race, 
as fully as he. 

32. The difference is, that he thinks that this is a 
total depravity of our nature, inherited by natural gene- 
ration from Adam ; while I think, that we destroy our- 
selves by our own sins. 



HUMAN DEPKAVITY. 417 

Mr. Flood's closing address and Twenty-ninth speech : 
This is my last speech on this subject. Mr. Summer- 
bell quotes one or two authorities, which do not affect 
the question of moral depravity; the opinion of a man 
does not influence or affect the question of total depravity. 
I refer you to Clarke, Benson, and Coke, (?) as evidence 
that man, in his natural state, in his fallen condition, is 
not capable of discernment. 

My brother inquires of me, if God should make or 
create another class of beings, similar to the present race, 
although not totally depraved, wherein they would differ, 
in their moral conduct, from us ? Since he has no mate- 
rial, wherewith to answer eight leading propositions, 
which I have brought forward, it is very convenient to 
bring this novel proposition forward, at this advanced 
stage of the discussion. I recollect a quotation : 

"Vain roan, go teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule, 
Then drop into thyself, and be a Fool." 

I should consider myself a fool, if I attempted to answer 
all the queries of my friend ; I might, however, quote 
Dr. Young: "Able to stand, though tree to fall." From 
my brother's remarks, on the sweetness of infancy, I 
judge, he must be a father. I felt, as he gave expression 
to those truths, a oneness of sentiment with him, and 
visions of lovely infants perched upon the bowers of 
paradise were presented to my mind ; and I thank God, 
that they have a part in Him who hath loved us, and 
washed us in his own blood ! There is certainly some- 
thing very delightful, in the contemplation of the love- 
liness of infancy, and though, by natural generation, they 
inherit a depraved nature, from their fountain-head being 
depraved, yet they inherit the redeeming graces of the 
Spirit of God, by the atonement of Jesus Christ, through 
his merit, and thus they are heirs to an immortal 
destiny. 

My brother insists on my saving children in a state of 
entire depravity ! How my good friend could have 



418 DISCUSSION ON 

drawn this conclusion from my position, I can not tell ; 
save them in their sins! I have assumed from the first, 
that the child is not a sinner. Where there is no law, 
there is no transgression. I assume, that infants are not 
saved in their depravity, but saved from all its conse- 
quences and influences. There is no sinning in infancy, 
positively; infants stand in a justified relation. My 
opponent says, if this be so, thus it must be with those 
who have come fo riper years. I understand justification 
to be a work done for us, by virtue of what Christ hath 
done for us; it is a forensic, or legal term. We are 
regenerated by the operations of the Holy Ghost ; hence, 
the term, " born of God," " born again," &c. All of 
these expressions signify a radical, or thorough change; 
they are used in a high and holy sense, to represent the 
operation of the grace within us, by which we are fitted 
for a place in heaven. 

Now, I admit that infants share all the benefits of 
Christ's redemption ; but they are not subject to any law, 
because they have not the capacity to be so. I am 
pleased, that my brother should feel so good a spirit, 
while with me. Cultivate this friendly feeling. 

But all the propositions remain unscathed, unmoved ; 
they have come out without even so much as the smell 
of fire upon their garments ! If we should be found 
nearer together, my brother will be found nearer to me ; 
for I want it to be distinctly understood, that there has 
been no approach on my part. I assure you, that it 
would be much more cheering to my heart, to carry away 
pleasanter feelings, than the noise and confusion of a 
former evening, were calculated to produce. 

1 have submitted eight different propositions : 

First. That man, in his creation, was made upright, and 
this I sustained by a number of texts. 

Second. That man has fallen into sin and ruin. 

Third. That all men, in their fallen condition, are 
morally depraved. 

Fourth. That human nature, in its fallen condition, is 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 419 

entirely depraved ; which I supported by many texts 
and direct proofs. 

Fifth. That this depravity is manifested in various 
ways; as, 

1. In a spirit of opposition and hatred to God. 

2. By acts of disobedience and insubordination. 

3. It is seen in indifference to God's authority, and 
deeds of darkness. 

4. It is shown in acts of base ingratitude and great 
cruelty. 

5. It is developed in deceit and hypocrisy. 

Sixth. That persons are only responsible for actual 
sins — sins of their own, not of others. 

We noticed in this connection, that this inclination to 
evil is early manifested in the life of the wicked. 

Then, we drew some of the consequences necessarily 
resulting from the doctrine of partial depravity : 

1. If any part of man is not depraved, that part 
stands in no need of redemption, and need not be 
redeemed. 

2. If that part of man's nature that is not depraved, 
obtains heaven, it obtains it of right, and not by the 
atonement of Jesus Christ. This, you will remember, 
was sustained by evidence, and not a single argument 
has been brought forward, that was not a natural 
sequence. 

Our seventh proposition, introduced some further 
Scripture evidence, sustaining the doctrine of man's 
entire depravity ; and we also quoted Dr. Clarke on the 
subject. 

Eighth. The relation of infants, to the law, is not the 
relation sustained by actual transgressors, though they 
inherit, by natural generation, an entirely depraved 
nature, as the progeny of an entirely depraved parent- 
age; yet infants are passive in the fall, and passive in 
the redemption by Christ. They can not possibly be the 
subjects of the law, therefore, they are unconditionally 
saved in Jesus Christ. In proof of this, I quoted Eom. 



420 DISCUSSION ON 

iv, 15, and v, 13-18, to show that infants obtain salva- 
tion upon the ground of Christ's atonement. 

I have now presented to you the ground that has been 
occupied in support of these propositions, which in every 
particular are distinct and conclusive; and I shall close 
this argument by saying, " He reckoned all under sin 
that he might have mercy upon all;" with reference to 
those in the condition of infancy it is passive ; to those 
w 7 ho have become actual sinners, it is upon the condition 
of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. " He 
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth in him." — John iii, 36. We have 
here the testimony that faith is made the condition of 
everlasting life. I thank God, that we are able to under- 
stand the full invitation of the Gospel of Christ to the 
perishing and lost, and if they reject it, eternal misery 
will be their lot. It is for resisting Divine influence that 
we complain of sinners : if God gave them no power to 
reform, we should never blame them for not doing it, but t 
God has graciously given this ability. That spirit is of 
God, and the Bible says, that " when he comes he shall 
convince the world of sin." Again, said Christ, "This 
is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and 
men love darkness rather than light;" Why? because 
they are entirely depraved; for another reason — "because 
their deeds were evil." This is the cause of our fault- 
finding with sinners ; it is their duty to receive and be- 
lieve the Gospel. Christ is here to-day, and I would to 
God he would fasten this truth upon their minds, that 
sinners might feel his power, and receive the gospel invi- 
tation. There is enough for each, enough for all, and 
enough for evermore ; the great and small, the wise and 
simple, black and white,, bond and free, are all alike in- 
vited to share this benefit. And God, in his love, regards 
the humblest slave that toils upon the Southern planta- 
tion, and who crouches beneath the whip, as equal to the 
highest man that occupies the highest throne in Europe ; 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 421 

hence, we offer to you the fullness of the gospel invita- 
tion. And though you inherit an entirely depraved 
nature, and have an inclination to evil, God gives you, 
by his grace, the power to resist the evil and cling to the 
good. It is of grace you have it, and you all possess it, 
for there is a measure of the Spirit of God given to 
every man ; God gives it that you may profit by it, not 
that he may increase your agony, but that you may be 
drawn to himself. It is for this express purpose his 
Spirit is given, and if you resist it, you are guilty before 
God, as were the Jews. 

Let me conclude. I may see you no more, and I want 
you to bear me record that I have dealt honestly, and 
spoken the convictions of my mind and heart. I will 
not question my brother's sincerity in what he has ad- 
vanced, but I will say, that on this point I differ from 
him honestly, and widely it may be. On this view of 
moral depravity I hold, that when man fell, he fell entire, 
in soul and body ; that he did die a spiritual death ; that 
he was morally excluded from the divine favor. It was 
not till the promise of redemption was given, that the 
favor of God was again lavished upon man ; he may now 
draw comfort with the spirit of grace, through all afflic- 
tions and trials. How complicated, how wonderful is 
man ! Although he dies, yet dying he lives for ever ; 
an angePs arm can not snatch him from the grave ; yes, 
thanks to God, who giveth us the victory, myriads of 
angels can not confine him there. The Lion of the tribe 
of Judah will descend, and will thrust his arm into the 
grave of sleeping humanity, and bring it up ; and I can 
not tell, but that some of this audience may already have 
the shadow of the sepulcher hanging heavily over their 
brow. But be it so ; there is a better land ; there is a 
higher and holier sphere, where human passions will 
never be stirred ; there is a place where the pure and 
blest will mingle in unceasing songs and anthems of 
praise, world without end ! Are you not happy in the 
contemplation ? Whatever of error may attach to any, 



422 DISCUSSION ON 

it shall be dropped from those who have trusted in Christ, 
and been faithful to the end, and have received him as 
their hope and stay, and as their support to the end of 
life. I hope and pray that God may grant this to be the 
inheritance and blessed portion of every one in this 
assembly. 

Mr. Summerbell's closing reply, and Twenty-ninth 
speech : 
Kind friends — the closing time has arrived; so all 
things earthly must have an end. The things which are 
seen are temporal, only the things not seen, are eternal. 
Never a man lived but what this sentence closed his 
history — Tie died! This is the last speech of our dis- 
cussion — and in the same kind feeling in which we com- 
menced, we close. 

1. My brother says his leading propositions have not 
been answered ; but you will be the better judges of 
that — at least more impartial ! He yet thinks, that as 
Cain was very bad, he must have been entirely depraved 
by nature ; as well might he say, that as Abel was very 
good, he must have been perfectly holy by nature. There 
is just as much evidence that both were born perfectly 
holy, as that both were born entirely depraved, and more, 
for it is easier to conceive of the one falling into sin, than 
of the other rising to holiness. 

2. He states the propositions, which he has advanced 
to prove the affirmative, that all men are entirely depraved 
and inclined to evil continually, as follows : 

First : " That God created man upright." On this 
we agree, hence there is no discussion on it. 

Second : " That man has fallen into sin and ruin." 
On this we agree, hence there was no discussion on it. 

Third: "That all mankind, in their fallen condi- 
tion, are morally depraved." On this we are perfectly 
agreed, as who would not be ? On this there is no 
discussion. 

Fourth; " That human nature, in its fallen condition, 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 423 

is entirely depraved." On this one point, the only one 
involving the point which he had to prove, he failed. He 
brought many texts to prove that we w T ere made upright 
and have fallen into sin, and are morally depraved ; but 
that human nature is entirely depraved by nature, he has 
not proved by one solitary text. 

Fifth : He illustrated it by showing that men opposed 
God's law, were disobedient, ungrateful, cruel, &c. ; but 
there was no discussion on these points, nor do they prove 
the main ^proposition^ His 

Sixth: Was, " persons are only responsible for their 
own sins." On this we are agreed, and hence have no 
discussion. His 

Seventh : Was, that " further evidence can be deduced 
from Scripture, of the entire depravity of our nature." 
That vjas his work ; but not a single text has he brought 
to prove it. 

Eighth: "That infants inherit this depravity by natu- 
ral generation, from an entirely depraved parentage ; but 
that as infants are passive in the fall, so they are not the 
subjects of law, and are therefore, unconditionally saved 
by Jesus Christ." But this he has not proved. 

3. He says, that sin is not imputed where there is no 
law ; and that the sinner is not blamed for any thing but 
refusing to close in with the overture of mercy. But if 
the sinner had a nature totally depraved and inclined to 
evil, and that continually, he would have to change that 
nature before he could accept the overtures of mercy. 
My brother says he differs from me on this doctrinal point 
t; very widely," just as widely as I differ from him ; but 
do you have charity for me, brother, and I will have 
charity for you, and feel very happy in the difference. 

4. He believes that we are sinners by nature ; but I 
believe that some were " Jews by nature, and not sin- 
nerrs of the Gentiles." — Galatians ii, 15. 

5. He believes that children are totally depraved by 
natural generation, but are regenerated in some way in 
their infancy. Strange that God should justify them, if 



424 DISCUSSION OK 

totally depraved, without faith or repentance. I believe 
with Jesus, that, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," 
and deny the total depravity. 

6. He says that we are all engendered in sin, but that 
infants that die are regenerated. If all are not, how 
does he know that those that die are ? and if all are, then 
there is no such natural depravity in the world ; for we 
were all infants once, and regenerated then. 

7. He thinks that we are born totally depraved ; but 
I can not believe it. I believe that we are born under 
the beneficent smile of our heavenly Father. 

8. I admit the sinfulness of the human race, and 
mourn over it : that without Jesus Christ and his salva- 
tion it is hopelessly lost ; but I regard Jesus as an All- 
sufficient Saviour. Upon this point we are entirely 
agreed. 

9. He says that we are depraved by nature. I say 
that we are depraved by practice. 

10. He has acknowledged that by entirely he meant 
totally ; and yet contends that children are not totally, 
but that they are entirely, depraved. 

11. He says that this entire depravity comes by actual 
transgression, contrary to his discipline, Art. Ill, which 
says, that it is u not in following Adam as the Pelagians 
do vainly talk," but that " it is naturally engendered of 
the offspring of Adam." 

12. I have proved that if human nature were entirely 
depraved, so that there was nothing about it that was not 
sinful ; that then righteousness, being contrary to our 
nature, would destroy it as surely as the tree would be 
destroyed by removing it from its native soil, and plant- 
ing it upon the sterile rock. 

13. I have proved that the texts which relate to man's 
depravity, refer to his own sins, and not those of others. 

14. He believes that we sinned in Adam before we 
were born ; but I believe with Paul, Romans ix, 11, that 
"the children being not yet born had done neither good 
nor evil." 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 425 

15. I proved that parents would not, and could not, 
love their children, if both were totally depraved. 

16. I showed that if mothers were totally depraved, 
that they would then all strive to kill their children, in- 
stead of loving them. He admitted the fact, by referring 
to Hindoo mothers casting their children into the Ganges, 
&c. ; thus admitting it to be the mother's nature, on his 
theory, to kill her children ! 

17. I proved that religion is natural to man, and that 
we expect the young to conform to religion — to act reve- 
rently in the house of God, &c, which, were they totally 
depraved by nature, would be useless and hypocritical, 
and encouraging hypocrisy for us to ask them to do so. 

18. I proved that, if there were nothing in man but 
total depravity, that then God could not love him without 
loving total depravity. 

19. He asserted that man had entirely fallen from 
grace ; but to my demand of, how he could be saved ? 
he referred to the gift of the Saviour, as though that 
were not proof of grace already existing. 

20. I proved to him that if man were totally depraved 
and fallen from grace, that God could neither love him, 
nor give him a Saviour. 

21. My friend was sustained in his argument only 
by Clarke, and other human authorities, whose creeds 
taught total depravity ; and hence they were ex parte 
witnesses. 

22. On his best argument, the glass of water, I showed 
that the nature of water was not changed, but only the 
water in the tumbler was tainted, and that this could be 
restored, the nature of the water remaining unchanged. 

23. When my brother appealed to the Moderators, 
they decided against him ; and when he was dissatisfied 
with their decision, I left it to a minister on his own side 
of the house, and he decided against him. 

24. My brother, by the aid of the "Scripture Manual" 
has only sustained the doctrine of the general sinfulness 
and depravity of man, in which we agree. 

36 



426 DISCUSSION ON 

25. I quoted him the text, " Thou was perfect in thy 
ways from the day in which thou wast created, until 
iniquity was found in thee ;" to which he has not re- 
sponded at all. 

26. To my numerous proofs, he has given no atten- 
tion, professing that he would be foolish to ; in which we 
agree. 

27. I have shown that his theory was contrary to the 
plain teachings of the Bible, and that the texts quoted in 
support of it, were misapplied. 

28. I have shown that his theory is contrary to 
observation and natural philosophy, and that mine is 
agreeable to both, and proved by our experience. 

And now, my friends, in closing up this discussion, 
I shall leave you to judge who has proved his position. 
I do not wish to say to you positively, that I claim every 
thing over my brother. I confess, however, that I feel 
very easy, as to what will be your decision. I feel very 
much pleased this day. I am not aware, that in any day 
of all my life, I have felt happier, or better pleased. 

There has been, on the whole, a manifestation of a 
general good feeling throughout the discussion, and I 
feel happy in Jesus Christ, that it has been so. Not- 
withstanding some few disagreeable manifestations of 
feeling, I am conscious that a great truth has been sus- 
tained, and that a great error has received a shock. I 
would rather we had loved a little more uniformly, but 
that I have ever been angry, I do not remember. In the 
reminiscences of my mind, I shall long have pleasant 
associations connected with this debate. I have no ill- 
will for my brother. I love the Methodist Society; both 
my father and mother were once connected with it ; I 
have labored with them ; I have preached in their pulpit, 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 427 

and I know all about their Society and their Doctrine. 
When I was invited here, it grieved me that I was to 
meet a Methodist Protestant brother. I would have pre- 
ferred to have met a minister of one of the older, and, 
if you will allow the expression, one of the crustier sects ; 
but my brother's creed was the same as theirs, and I 
trust that the result will be good. 

If I have, during this discussion, said any thing that 
would convey an idea of hostility to my brother or his 
Church, it was not intentional, and you will please not 
to understand me so. I would wish to follow the meek 
and lowly Jesus. I think a Christian should be gentle 
and forgiving, and I would desire in all things to sus- 
tain apicre Christian character, and endeavor to think 
better of my brother, than of myself; hence, I have not 
called my brother by any unseemly epithets. It is better 
we should be like Christ; or if w r e can not be wholly free 
from sin, yet, if we sin, that it may not be without mourn- 
ing for it, and feeling sorrowful on account of it. 

You will not fail, I think, to see a difference between 
my doctrine and my brother's ; as great a difference, as 
there is between the life of a Christian, and the life of 
one who is not. Yet, I well know, that it is not a mere 
technical creed, that makes a man a Christian. Paul 
says of the Christian graces, 1 Cor. xiii, 13, "And now 
abideth faith, hope, charity, these three ; but the greatest 
of these is charity." Charity is greater than faith ! 
greater than hope ! we must have love for our fellow- 
beings. We may manifest great devotion to principles 
that may be at stake ; but if we have not charity, it 
amounts to nothing. The errors which we see and con- 
demn iu others, we must learn to shun ourselves. Tha 



428 DISCUSSION ON 

Christian life is the only one worth living for ; perhaps, 
you have tried it, if you have, go on. If you have not, 
commence ; learn it by practical experience. Jesus said : 
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doc- 
trine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my- 
self;" we must do his will, if we would understand his 
religion. It is only by doing his will, that we can learn 
his doctrine. "The mystery of godliness," is learned 
by practicing godliness. It is thus we le^rn how to act ; 
how to pray ; how to love ; and how to be kind to each 
other, by practicing the great virtues of religion. We 
should, as genuine Christians, strive to think, and to feel 
and to act like Christ, that the wicked may saj^ they 
have been with Jesus, and learned of him, because they 
see that we are like him. Let us study over our Bible, and 
on our knees, every day of our lives, strive to attain to 
its celestial meaning. Parents, be kind to your children, 
not provoking them to wrath ; but training them up in 
the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. Children, 
love your parents, obey them, reverence them, and great 
shall be your reward ; the first commandment, with pro- 
mise, is : " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy 
days may be long in the land, which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee." We shall soon pass away from this earth, 
and all its trials. My brother and I may never meet 
again on earth. I attended a debate in Illinois, in which 
Mr. Phelps and Mr. Barr took part, and in which I be- 
came a principal ; that very autumn the Gospel Herald 
announced the death of Mr. Phelps, and Mr. Barr, in the 
same number; they did not live to see another year. 
When we think of these things, it should lead us to pre- 
pare our minds for our own end, for we may never live 



HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 429 

to see another summer. In reference to this debate, I 
admit that we have not, at all times, maintained that 
standing before you, that you might have desired ; but 
remember, that to err, is human ; but to forgive, is di- 
vine. We will see who are divine, as well as who are 
human, by seeing who are most ready to forgive. And 
when the scenes of time are passed, I hope to meet you all 
again, where your eyes will never grow dim with tears — 
where the Lamb will gird himself, and serve us on the 
other side of Jordan — where there will be no contention, 
but where w T e shall join with the angels in ascribing 
glory, and honor, dominion, wisdom, riches, and strength, 
and thanksgiving to Him that sitteth upon the throne, 
and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. 

I thank this audience for the patience and attention 
with which they have listened to our remarks, and for 
the kindness they have manifested, in inviting us to their 
homes. With true Christian love have they greeted us. 
May God bless them for it ; may the blessing of heaven 
rest upon this place, and may you and your children be 
made recipients of the saving grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

And to you, gentlemen Moderators, who have borne 
with us, when, perhaps, you might have felt it to be your 
duty to interfere ; for your patience I thank you, and 
may God bless you — may he keep you in his love ; and 
may you never have to say that your confidence in the 
great truths of Christianity has been shaken by this dis- 
cussion. 

And to our friends, the Reporters, who have day by 
day been recording our words, I render my thanks. May 
God, in his great goodness, abundantly bless you. And 



430 ADDENDA. 

now I must bid you all farewell ; may God go with you 
to your homes, and prosper you in your undertakings. 
May the peace of God be upon you, and may his face 
shine upon you ; may the light of his countenance ever 
illuminate your path. And when we have passed from 
the scenes of time, bidding adieu to the sorrows of life 
and its last trials, may we not look back with sorrow or 
regret; but with the pleasing reflection that we have 
fought a good fight, and finished our course, so that we 
may receive the crown prepared for the faithful in Christ 
Jesus. Farewell. 

END OF THE DISCUSSION. 



ADDENDA. 

Mr. Flood desired to say a few words. 

I return my thanks to you, gentlemen Moderators, 
for the disinterested manner in which you have presided 
over our deliberations, which has left not the slightest 
occasion to complain. To these gentlemen, the Report- 
ers, I return my thanks. They have certainly been most 
attentive in taking a record of our proceedings, and from 
an opportunity I have had of judging, from a transcrip- 
tion of a sermon of mine, preached last Sabbath, they 
will give us a strictly correct report — which I am happy 
in anticipating. To this large and attentive audience, I 
return my thanks. It may be that, in the providence of 
God, it will be my privilege, at some future time, to pre- 



ADDENDA. 431 

sent to you the glorious doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, 
for which I have here contended in the character of 
a preacher, rather than of a debater. I shall leave here 
with the kindest feelings and wishes for the good of all, 
and would offer to heaven a prayer that its choicest 
blessings may rest upon you and your children. 

The Moderators. — Mr. Griffin, (Christian) one of the 
Moderators said, that he felt very much pleased in the 
happy termination of the discussion. He believed that 
there was a general kind feeling existing among all par- 
ties ; and that the Discussion, as a whole, had no tendency 
to widen the difference between the contending parties, but 
rather to unite them ; and hoped that we might all strive 
for that love and union which would promote the cause 
of Zion. He alluded to the happy unanimity which had 
existed among the Moderators upon all questions sub- 
mitted to them ; and of the intimate acquaintance which 
he had formed with them, by being associated with them 
in the Board, which he should ever remember with pleas- 
ing recollections. 

Mr. Fowler (Methodist Protestant) united with Mr. 
Griffin in expressing the same sentiments. He had never 
seen a discussion conducted with so uniform Christian 
feeling:, and he thought that this would at least teach the 
people that we could discuss our differences in love. He 
should long remember the scenes with pleasure. He had 
formed an acquaintance with brother Summerbell some- 
time previous, and he was very happy in the renewal of 
that acquaintance on this occasion ; and wherever our 



432 ADDENDA. 

lots might be cast on earth, he hoped that we might one 
day meet in heaven. 

On motion, The thanks of the Congregation was ten- 
dered to the Speakers, which terminated the- proceedings. 

The congregations were usually large, and much of 
the time very much crowded. All the meetings for dis- 
cussion were opened with prayer, and a general religious 
interest pervaded the whole. 

BENN PITMAN, 

Reporter. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



• 4 



V 



